LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

biielf lA^ ^ '^ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



.. _ 3-^ 



BALFOUa'S REPLY 



TO 



REV. BERNARD WHITMAN, 



ON THE 



TERM GEHENNA, RENDERED HELL 

IN THE COMMON VERSION. 



'$). 



LETTER 



REV. BERNARD WHITMAN, 



TERM GEHENNA, RENDERED HELL 



IN THE COMMON VERSION. 



Bt WALTER BALFOUR. 



What is Truth ? — Pilate. /^ 



BOSTON: 

THOMAS WHITTEMORE AND B. B. MUSSEY. 
1834. 



•^.:" . • "! ;: ':. ■ ■ •,"■/^■^.^.'' -i''-^ 



).:> :-"■ 






Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1834, by 

Walter Balfour, 
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Dis. of Mass. 



/J 6 



The Library 
OF Congress 

I 



WASHINGTON 



/ BOSTON i p 

\ James B. Dow, Printer, > 
( 123 Washington-St. ) 



LETTER. 



Sir, 

I HAVE read your book, called — * Friendly Letters 
to a Universalist.' In your sixth letter, I find my ' First 
Inquiry' is attacked, without naming it or me. To this 
letter I shall confine my reply ; for with the rest of your 
book I have no more concern, than any other Universal- 
ist. I have no particular objections, however, to reply to 
your whole book, on the following conditions : 

1. When Universalists, generally, deem your book 
worthy of a general reply, and wish me to undertake it. 
But I suspect, they look on your book, as you say Unita- 
rians viewed mine, — ' unworthy of any public notice.' 

2. Some of your celebrated Unitarian ministers must 
endorse your book. Were I to refute the whole of it, 
Unitarians might say — ' You have only killed a fly ; for 
we consider Mr. Whitman's book a very weak defence of 
future punishment.' I wish to be certain, sir, that I am 
not to fight with ^ a shadotoJ If your greatest men 
think your book unanswerable, let them announce this to 
the public. 

3. You must give me some public pledge, that you 
will not continue to misrepresent my opinions. Such a 
pledge is indispensable, as you have so grossly misrepre- 
sented my sentiments in your sixth letter. If you are so 
idle, as to find time to write misrepresentations, I cannot 
spare time to continue to write exposures of them. But 
for the following reasons, I should have taken no notice 
of your present misrepresentations. 1. Your sixth letter 
contains the first attack made by Unitarians on my views 
of gehenna. And as it professes to be ^ a thorough in- 
vestigation ' of the subject ; that you are * to hring for- 
ward such evidence as seemed to settle this controversy 
beyond all doubt,' I thought some notice of it was neces- 
sary. 2. It appears the learned arguments of the Uni- 



4 

tarians against my views of gehenna are given in your 
sixth letter. Its principal materials were furnished you 
from Cambridge university, and at the expense of consid- 
erable time and labor to some gentleman there. From 
these considerations, I have concluded to examine this 
letter in detail. I shall quote all the material statements 
in your own words, and reply to them, — leaving the reader 
to judge for himself. I shall follow you step by step; from 
the commencement to the conclusion of your letter. 

You commence thus : * My dear sir, I have selected 
and arranged eight classes of passages, which distinctly 
teach, or plainly imply future punishment.' But you in- 
form us, your limits did not permit you, ^to give even a 
brief exposition of but one of the number.* You ob- 
serve — ' the question at issue is not to be decided by 
the number of times a future retribution is recognized in 
scripture. A few undoubted instances must be as sat- 
isfactory to every sincere believer as many hundreds.' 
Agreed. The question then is — What are the ' un- 
doubted instanceSy which you have selected out of your 
eight classes of texts ? You answer — ' I shall confine 
myself to that class of passages in which the Greek word 
gehenna occurs.' No one can doubt, but this class of 
passages, are the most ' undoubted instances ' you could 
find, in proof of your future retribution.* But when you 
come to p. 185, you say — ' I am willing to confess, that 
the removal of gehenna from the controversy would not 
shake my belief in the doctrine of a future retribution.' 
What then can shake your faith in this doctrine, if it 
would remain unshaken, after the 'undoubted instances^ 
of proof are removed from it 1 Who, or what, can con- 
trol that man's faith, which is beyond the control of * un- 
doubted instances ' of proof, and is not affected by their 
removal ? 

You say — ' Gehenna is a word of exclusive Hebrew 
origin.' And, after giving us the common description 

* A reply then to these * undoubted instances ' will be a reply 
to your whole book ; for if you cannot establish your system by 
* Undoubted instances * of proof, it is a hopeless case to attempt it 
by such as are doubtful. It so happens then, that my battle is to 
be with the best of your troops, and if they are routed, victory i§ 
sure over all the rest, by your own confession. 



of the valley of Hinnom, etc. you add — * so far there is 
no disagreement/ Nothing material, sir, except this. 
If gehenna is a Greek word, and exclusively of Hebrew 
origin, why did you not go to the Hebrew scriptures to 
ascertain its scriptural meaning ? why avoid them alto- 
gether ? But I must notice your next paragraph in de- 
tail, as it opens the controversy between us. 

You say — ' Now the learned commentators of all de- 
nominations contend, that the name of this loathsome, 
and fiery, and wormy valley, was afterwards used as an 
emblem of the future punishment of the wicked. They 
contend that our Saviour used gehenna to signify the tor- 
ment which awaited the sinful in another existence.' 
To this, sir, I answer. 1 . The commentators contend, that 
Jesus Christ is the Supreme God. But you deny this. 
And if their contending for a doctrine is good evi- 
dence of its truth, Unitarianism is a mass of falsehood. 
Why then use an argument, which destroys your own 
system 1 It is what commentators prove, not what they 
contend for, any of us ought to care about. 

2. No commentator has ever proved, that any sacred 
writer m?idiQ gehenu^^ 2iXi emblem of the future punish- 
ment of the wicked.' You adduce no such proof from 
them, which shows you could find none. And do you 
think, sir, that I ought to believe your assertion — ^ that 
our Saviour used gehenna to signify the torment which 
awaited the sinful in another existence ? ' This has 
been asserted long enough. I now^ call on you to jproye 
when, where, and by wha t inspired" wr iter, gehenna was 
ma3e~ari eTn^Tem of the future punishment of the wick- 
ed. This word has no such sense in the Old Testament, 
as all confess. Now, as you assert, this sense of gehen- 
na was common among the Jews in the days of the Sa- 
viour, show us God's authority for it, some time between 
the completion of the Old Testament and the commence- 
ment of the gospel dispensation ? I shall deem it of 
human origin, until you have proved its origin divine. 

But alluding to me, you say — ^ This opinion was gen- 
erally received as true, until one who is now a member 
of your body denied its correctness. He endeavored to 
show, that no such change had taken place in the mean- 
ing of the word. He aimed to prove, that gehenna must 
1* 



6 

be taken in its literal sense, as a place of temporal ptin-^ 
ishment near Jerusalem.' On this it may be observ- 
ed : 1. Here your misrepresentation commences j but I 
shall defer an exposure of it, until you are nearly done 
repeating it. Who, except Bernard Whitman, will say^ 
that I ' aimed to prove that gehenna must be taken in 
its literal sense ? ' etc. 

2. I not only deny, but glory in denying, * that our 
Saviour used gehenna to signify the torment which await- 
ed the sinful in another existence.' For ten years I 
have believed this opinion incorrect, and your book de- 
monstrates its incorrectness. You abandon the Bible as 
proving it correct, as we shall see in the sequel. 

3. You seem to intimate, that my views of gehenna 
are not true, because they do not accord with the * gen- 
erally received ' opinion. Be consistent, then, and aban- 
don (Jnitarianism ; for does it accord with generally receiv- 
ed opinion ? If either the antiquity or universality/ of an 
opinion, is proof of its truth, let us both retrace our steps, 
for we are sadly out of the right way. But it must 
beget a smile, to see a Unitarian pleading the authority 
of commentators and generally received opinion, as evi- 
dence against my views of gehenna. It is building again 
what you have destroyed. You go on to tell us — * Uni- 
tariams consider the doctrine of future retribution firmly 
established without a reference to this class of passages : 
they took little or no notice of the work ; and very few 
of the denomination have perused it even to this day. 
Those who examined for themselves, stated, that the in- 
vestigation of the subject was superficial, the reasoning 
inconclusive, and many of the arguments irrelevant, 
and deemed it unworthy of any public notice.' * On 
these statements we have a few remarks to make. 

1. It is of very little consequence, what the Unitarians 
thought or said about my book ; or that they deemed it 

* Does not this savour of sectarian self-importance ? Must a 
book be good for nothing, unless Unitarians condescend to notice 
it ? I am not aware, that many people think wisdom lives with, 
and must die among Unitarians. But by your own account, if 
my book is generally condemned among them, it is on the testi- 
mony of a few, for you say few of them have ever perused it. If 
it is condemned generally, it is condemned unheard, for but few 
Unitarians have examined it for themselves. 



^ unworthy of any public notice.' Certainly I have no 
reason to complain, that it has not been sufficiently no- 
ticed. I have sat, myself, and heard it preached against 
some half dozen times, and have learned from others, 
that many a clergyman has made it his theme in the 
sacred desk. It has also been noticed publicly in books 
from the press, by Messrs. Sabine, Hudson, Allen, Stuart, 
and now by yourself. And how often it has been no- 
ticed in the public journals, is beyond all my calculations. 
This is much more public notice, than I ever expected 
my book to receive. Indeed, few books for the last ten 
years in this region have received more public notice and 
it might well dispense with all notice from Unita- 
rians. 

2. It appears, that as I left the Unitarians texts enough 
to establish their future retribution, they cared little 
about my book. This is assigned as the reason why 
' they took little or no notice of the work, and very few 
of the denomination have perused it even to this day.' I 
know, Sir, that you have perused it, and now misrepresent 
it. I know also that some other Unitarian ministers have 
not only perused it, but approved of it. And one of these, 
instead of misrepresenting it, marked in the copy he read, 
his approbation of it; and he is not behind Mr. Whitman 
in character, talents, or investigation. I do not mention 
this, to prove my book correct. 

3. But you tell us, some Unitarians examined my book 
for themselves. And they * stated/ but to whom is not 
mentioned, ' that the investigation of the subject was 
superficial, the reasoning inconclusive, and many of the 
arguments irrelevant, and deemed it unworthy of any pub- 
lic notice.' Supposing these statements correct, per- 
mit me now to ask you a few questions. 

1. Must not you be a very idle man, and fond of low 
dirty work, to meddle with my book ? Why stoop to no- 
tice a work, which for ten long years has been below 
Unitarian notice, by your own frank confession } You 
disgrace the whole denomination, to say a word about a 
work, which was too contemptible for their elevated dig- 
nity to notice. Is the dignity of Unitarians fallen ? Or, 
is my book risen in value during the last ten years ? 

2. But why was it necessary, before you noticed a 
book, which is below Unitarian notice, that you should 



8 

go to the University for assistance? Let us hear your 
own confession about this ; (p. 194.) * I found that I had 
neither time nor qualifications to make that thorough re- 
search which my work demanded. I accordingly obtain- 
ed the assistance of two friends, the Rev. George Nichols, 
and the Rev. Andrew P. Peabody, tutor in Hebrew and 
the Mathematics in the University, who are amply and 
admirably qualified for the undertaking. They have 
spent hours and days in poring over the Targums and 
Talmuds, and other authorities in various ancient and 
modern languages. They have furnished me with nu- 
merous quotations, translated from the original Chaldaic, 
-some of which you have in the present communication.' 
Is it possible. Sir, that you ^ had neither time nor qualifi- 
cations to make that thorough research which your work 
demanded,' to notice a book in which ' the investigation 
of the subject is superficial, the reasoning inconclusive, 
and many of the arguments irrelevant, and deemed un- 
worthy of any public notice ' by Unitarians ! I suspect 
one of two things must be true. Either you did not be- 
lieve what the Unitarians said of my book, or you must 
be a very modest, diijdent man, unconscious of your su- 
perior talents. I am at a loss to perceive, how this book, 
could require any ^ thorough research ' to refute it. 
These learned gentlemen ought to have told you — Mr. 
Whitman, it is only wasting time, to spend hours and days 
poring over the Targums and Talmuds, to find something 
to refute a book, which you know is below Unitarian no- 
tice, and which few of them have ever perused.' But it 
seems, you were all alike foolish in giving yourselves a 
world of trouble about nothing. I am sure. Sir, I never 
anticipated my book was to give you and these gentle- 
men so much trouble. But blame yourselves, — for you 
confess the book did not deserve it. 

3. But with all this learned assistance, why was it ne- 
cessary for you to misrepresent my book ? How do you 
account for the strange inconsistency, that the very first 
notice of the book, which for ten years has been below 
Unitarian notice, you now only notice it, to misrepresent 
it ? Shall I ascribe this to want of discernment, want 
of candor, or something worse ? A man of your contro- 
versial celebrity ought to have despised this. What 
possible need could there be, to misrepresent such a con- 



temptible book, which any fool or child could refute, ac- 
cording to yoilr Unitarian account of it? But, 

4. Why should U/iitariajis now notice the book, which 
has been so much noticed by our orthodox brethren ? If 
Messrs. Sabine, Hudson, Allen, or Stuart have refuted 
it, your notice of it is perfectly superfluous, a work of 
supererogation. When this child of mine was brought 
into the world, I confess I had some anxiety for its fate. 
I received no aid from the University. And by your 
own confession, the poor child might have died, for any 
aid it has received from Unitarians since. At its birth, 
they deemed it a poor, puny, -sickly thing, which must 
soon die a natural death. They considered it ' unwor- 
thy of any public notice,' and very few of them have 
ever looked on the child to this day. It has, however, 
outlived all the hard treatment it has met with, and I have 
no fears it will ever expire under your hands. But as the 
poor child ^ would not die by unitarian neglect for the 
last ten years, it seems they wish now to kill it by their 
public notice. They will do the child no harm by their 
opposition, for the more hardly it has been treated, the 
better it has grown. In plain language, sir, my book 
still remains unanswered. All who have attempted this 
have more or less misrepresented it, and you excel them 
all in misrepresentation. Such attacks have done it 
good, and if misrepresentations of it, have cost you and 
others so much trouble, what must be your labor, when 
you grapple with its real sentiments. If you have run 
with the footmen, and they have wearied you, you know 
the rest. 

If my book is superficial in investigation, its reason- 
ings inconclusive, and many of the arguments irrelevant, 
it is certain you had a similar opinion of all the books 
which have been written against it. This appears from 
your next words. You say, * when I commenced my 
preparation for the present letter, I did not think much 
space could be allotted to this part of the discussion. 
On examination, however, I became convinced that 
your view of the word was altogether erroneous, and 
concluded to bring forward such evidence as seemed to 
settle this controversy beyond all doubt. The results of 
a thorough investigation will now be submitted to your 



|10 

candid consideration.' A plain confession sir, you be- 
lieved, that none who have attempted to ahsvver my book, 
had settled ' this controversy beyond all doubt ; ' or, had 
laid before us * the results of a thorough investigation.' 
Unless they had all failed, in refuting a book below uni- 
tarian notice, your attempt was unnecessary. Let us 
now attend to your ^ thorough investigation,^ You say, 

I. ' In the first place 1 will state some of my reasons 
for rejecting your definition of the greek term gehenna. 
How then do you say I define it 1 Your answer is — 
^ You contend that gehenna was used to denote a place 
of literal punishment in this world alone, out of the city 
of Jerusalem.' This, however, is only your own mis- 
representation, which I shall show in its place. But 
against this misrepresentation all your force is di- 
rected, and my views of gehenna are left unmolest- 
ed. You say, ^ All- valuable commentators affirm, that 
Jesus employed the w^ord as an emblem of the spir- 
itual punishment of the wicked, both in this world 
and the next existence.* This is the view I take of the 
subject, and the one which I shall attempt to defend.^ 
Let it then be distinctly remembered, that the view which 
you have pledged yourself to defend, contains the fol- 
lowing ideas. You have got to prove, that gehenna 
means ' spiritual punishment/ and spiritual punishment 
* hoth in this world and the next existence,^ That this 
spiritual punishment is for ' the wicked; ' and that Jesus 
employed g^ehenna as an emblem of this punishment. 
Let us now attend to your reasons. You say, 

'1. I reject your definition of gehenna, because it 
makes our blessed Saviour utter nonsense and falsehoodc 

* Mr. Whitman, — on whose authority do commentators affirm 
this ? Not on God's authority, for it is conceded on all hands, ge- 
henna has no such meaning in the Old Testament. Not on the 
authority of Jesus Christ or his Apostles, for you affirm, p. 183, 
that — 'gehenna was uniformly used by the Jews in the time 
of the Saviour to mean future punishment.' It is not on inspired 
authority ; nor even on the authority of uninspired Jews, who 
lived in the days of the Saviour, as we shall see afterwards. Even 
supposing the Jews, in our Lord's day, used gehenna in this 
sense, do you think Jesus imbibed their traditions in his child- 
hood, and propagated them as a part of the doctrine received from 
his Father ? Did he receive for doctrines the commandments of 
men ? Did he not constantly refer the Jews to their own scrip-* 
tures ? 



11 

Look at the several passages in which he employs the 
word. The following is the first instance, Matt. v. 22/ 
After quoting this text, you say — ^ I defy you or any 
man ; I challenge you or any individual' And you re- 
peat your challenge thus — J^ defy you to produce a sin- 
gle example in which they (the Jews) punished any breach 
of their laws by burning in the valley of Hinnom ; and 
consequently no one of those our Lord addressed, were in 
any danger of being thus punished for any crime what- 
ever.' Irius, you go on to fight your first battle with a man 
of straw to the end of the paragraph. But all this is 
mere blustering ; for every child knows from John xviii. 
31, that the Jews then could not put any man lawfully 
to death, by any mode of punishment whatever. And 
surely, Bernard Whitman, of Waltham, knows, that my 
views of gehenna have nothing to do with ' burning in 
the valley of Hinnom.' 

You say, our Lord's meaning in this passage is — 'he 
meant that the torment of inimical and revengeful feel- 
ings must be as severe as the punishment which could 
be inflicted in three several methods. And when he 
used the word gehenna, he extended the sufferings be- 
yond the grave, as this word was then employed to de- 
note the future misery of the wicked, which I shall soon 
prove.' So, you are honest enough to confess, that all 
this is mere assertion, but which you are to prove after- 
wards ; and yet you draw the following conclusion : 
* Thus you see your definition of gehenna makes our 
Saviour utter nonsense and falsehood.' Can you tell us 
sir, what is the precise value of a conclusion, which is 
drawn from a misrepresentation, and a number of con- 
fessed assertions ? Thus ends your first battle with a 
man of straw. You say, 

*2. Take a second class of passages.' These are 
Matth. V. 29, 30. 9. Mark xviii; 43, 45. After quoting 
the first of these texts, you repeat your misrepresentation 
thus : ' What connexion would the cutting oif an offend- 
ing member have with being burnt in the valley of Hin- 
nom ? What court had authority to inflict this kind of 
punishment on account-of a person's being led into sin by 
his right eye 1 ' My readers must consult the Rev. 
Bernard Whitman for an answer to these questions; for 



12 

I know of no ' connexion^ these things have with my 
views of gehenna. You forget to give us an explana- 
tion of any of these passages. Such is your * thorough 
investigation ' of the subject. But you say, 

* 3. Take a third class of passages.' These are Matth. 
X. 28 Luke xii. 5. You quote the first of these 
texts, and ask - — * What can you make of this verse, on 
your system ? I answer, Consult my book, and see. 
Why did you answer a matter before you heard it 1 
Prov. xviii. 13. But you ask again — * What more than 
the body could be destroyed in the valley of Hinnom 1 ' 
And thus pass off your misrepresentation in the form of 
a question. You add — ' Give the true exposition of the 
passage, and our Lord's instructions appear clear, strik- , 
ing, rational, and consistent.' But how can this appear, 
until * the true exposition ' is given ? You give us no 
exposition, either true or false; so that we must take 
nothing for * a thorough investigation ' of the subject. 
You say, 

* 4. Take a fourth class of passages.' But this is only 
Matth. xxiii: 15. After quoting it, your misrepresentation 
is thus repeated. ' Then according to your definition he 
(the proselyte) ought to be burnt tvv-ice in the valley of 
Hinnom.' As usual, you give us no exposition of this 
passage ; but say, 

' 5. Take a fifth example.' This is Matth.^xxiii. 33, 
Your established misrepresentation is thus repeated> 
*The Scribes and Pharisees were in no more danger of 
being burned in the valley of Hinnom than of being 
drowned in the then unknown valley of the Mississippi.' 
Agreed. We are also agreed, that ^ this verse is mani- 
festly addressed to men in real danger of gehenna, what- 
ever it might be.' What then was it ? Dr. Allen, sir, 
Orthodox as he is, confessed I had offered something 
like argument in my exposition of this passage. But, 
according to your views, our Lord said to the unbeliev- 
ing Jews — ^ How can ye escape the torment of inimical 
and revengeful feelings, the spiritual punishment of the 
wicked both in this world and the next existence ? ' 
Does the context, sir, point out such an exposition as 
this? Examine and see, if it does not rather sanction 
mine, given in my first Inquiry. You add, 



13 

* 6. Look also at the passage from James, Chap. iii. 6. 
After quoting it, you ask — * Does the writer mean to de- 
clare, that the human tongue is literally set on fire 
of the valley of Hinnom 1 ' Which is your common 
mode of presenting your misrepresentation. But as a 
rarity, you give us the following exposition of this pas- 
sage. You say — * A passage from one of the Jewish 
writers will illustrate the meaning of this verse. *' A 
crafty tongue with coals of juniper, which were lighted 
in the infernal gehenna.'' Another author has this 
sentence, ** I above, thou beneath. I from above will 
scatter arrows upon evil tongues, thou from beneath shall 
cast up coals upon them.^' ' But, sir, did you not notice, 
that in the first of these quotations, gehenna is called the 
infernal gehenna, which smells strongly of paganism. 
And in your second, gehenna is not mentioned at all. 
Nor does it appear, how either of these quotations give 
the true sense of the passage. Casting ^ up coals, ^ and 
* coals of juniper,' does not look much like a ' spiritual 
punishment.' The Jewish hell and yours, is far from 
being the same, as we shall see in the sequel. The dif- 
ference is so great, that I am surprised, you did not per- 
ceive it, and abandon your cause. 

You have thus passed in review, all the texts in the 
New Testament where gehenna occurs. I have now a 
few brief remarks to make on your labors. 1. The 
whole number of occurrences are twelve. These you di- 
vided into six classes ; but for what reason I cannot 
conjecture, unless it was for parade, and to afford 
you more opportunities to repeat your misrepresentation, 
and fight six battles with a man of straw. Your troops, 
might surely have been divided into more or fewer di- 
visions, to gain such a victory. 

2. From no one text, have you so much as attempted 
to prove, that gehenna means ' spiritual punishment,* 
This you never intended. You have made no appeal 
to the Old Testament, and your proofs from the whole 
Bible are here closed. It is a mere burlesque on inves- 
tigation, to call yours * a thorough investigation,* I 
have been saved all trouble, of defending my views of 
the different texts where gehenna is used, for you have 
waged no war with them, or so much as named them. 
2 



14 

3. It will be asked, what then have you been about all 
this time ? I answer, making assertions ; giving us 
promises ; and fighting with your own shadow. Being 
* burned in the valley of Hinnom,^ has been the burden 
of your song, your unvaried tune of misrepresentation. 
It is of Waltham manufacture, sir, and if it makes the 
Saviour utter nonsense and falsehood, blame the manu- 
facturer. Is it asked, How then are you to prove your 
views of gehenna, seeing you have abandoned the Bible ? 
The sequel will show, that the Targums and Talmuds 
are to be your oracles on the subject. 

4. Shunning battle with my views of gehenna, speaks 
a volume. It was not from ignorance of them, this was 
done. In your last paragraph under your first reason^ 
you begin thus — ' Perhaps you may now say, that our 
Saviour alluded to the destruction of Jerusalem.' But 
you perceived you was stumbling near my views, and fin- 
ished the sentence thus — * and those who were not con- 
verted to Christianity, would then be burnt in the valley 
of Hinnom.' Not forgetting to add — your view ' makes, 
our Saviour a fool and a liar.' But all this shows, you 
knew more about my views of gehenna, than you deem- 
ed prudent to disclose to your readers. Here, there was 
a want of something else than discernment. Had my 
writings furnished such an unguarded sentence, no 
doubt but you would have quoted it. I was not prepar- 
ed to expect such misrepresentations from Mr. Whitman, 
and I am sorry he should have resorted to them. I 
frankly forgive you, and am sure, your own painful feel- 
ings will be a sufficient punishment. Nor is there any 
need for you to go into another world to suffer it, for no 
doubt you will suifer enough here from your own reflec- 
tions. But you say, 

' 2. My second reason for rejecting your definition of 
gehenna is this. The word evidently denotes some kind 
of punishment in all the instances in which our Saviour 
used it.' Well, as you only mention * spiritual punish- 
ment, both in this life and the world to come,' I must 
conclude this is always your sense of gehenna in the 
New Testament. It means * the torment of inimical 
and revengeful feelings.' p, 167. But if you really be- 
lieve this, it is very strange you should carefully avoid 



15 

proving it. You say — ' Now we have no evidence that 
the valley ofllinnom was a plpce of punishment in the 
time of the Saviour.' Be it so ; I say, ' Now you give us 
no evidence, that gehenna meant a spiritual punishment 
both in this life and the world to come in the time of 
our Saviour,' which balances this account. You add 
— ' We never find any person, but Christ and his Apos- 
tles, using the word.' True. But this fact shows your 
assertion false in another place, that gehenna * was uni- 
formly used by the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, to 
mean future punishment.' p. 183. If it h^d then meant 
this, our Lord would have got enough of such punishment 
threatened him by the Jews. 

But you say — ^ Our Saviour mentions various kinds 
of trials to which his Apostles would be liable ; but he 
mentions gehenna in this connexion but once ; and he 
then uses the word in such a manner that you plainly per- 
ceive he could not mean corporal punishment, since he 
had just spoken of killing the body as a matter of no con- 
sequence.' This is a strange statement ; for, 1. The 
chief part of all our Lord said about gehenna, was men- 
tioned to his Apostles. Now, if he only mentioned gehen- 
na once to them, in conexion with the trials to which 
they would be liable, do tell us, in what other connexion 
it was mentioned to them ? 2. Did our Lord threaten 
his Apostlea, with ' spiritual punishment hoth in this life 
andthe world to come,' and that in connexion with the 
trials to which they would be liable? And did he threat- 
en them with this, a great deal more than he did the 
wicked Jews ? Moreover, was the destroying both soul 
and body in gehenna a matter of no consequence ? And ' 
did this mean ^spiritual punishment both in this life and 
the world to come ! ! 3. Do you console Christians at 
Waltham, under their trials, by threatening them with 
this gehenna punishment 1 And do you say very little 
about it to your wicked hearers 1 You tell us, p. 186 — 
* I seldom use the word hell in my discourses.' Where 
then is your fidelity or consistency ? 4. My views of 
gehenna, rationally and scripturally account for our 
Lord's conduct, in saying so much to the Apostles, and 
so little to the wicked Jews about gehenna. This you 
may see in my First Inquiry. But my views, whether 
pght or wrong, you were not prepared to engage with. 



16 

I thank you for the following. You say — * The Apos- 
tles never speak of themselves as in any danger of being 
burned in the valley of Hinnom ; and the Jevi^s never 
threaten either them or their Master with such a punish 
ment. Consequently I cannot possibly believe, that our 
Saviour meant a literal, temporal punishment in the 
valley of Hinnom, when he used the word gehenna.' 
Who ever supposed he did ? But I return you your 
own remarks with a slight alteration. ' The Apostles 
never speak of themselves as in any danger of gehenna 
punishment in the next existence ; and the Jews never 
threaten either them or their masters with such a pun- 
ishment. Consequently, I cannot possibly believe, that 
our Saviour meant spiritual punishment in the next exist- 
ence when he used the word gehenna.' This is com- 
mitting suicide on your own system. We have some- 
times met with a writer who contradicted himself, and 
in using one argument destroyed the force of anoth« 
er ; but here you dash your views of gehenna to pieces 
with one single blow. This argument, sir, is like a two 
edged sword. In striking your man of straw with the 
one edge, you have killed yourself with the other. The 
fact, sir, is indisputable, that the Apostles never expressed 
the least fear about punishment in your gehenna or hell ; 
nor did the Jews ever threaten them or their Master with 
such punishment. No,.sir; where did the Jews ever 
threaten Christ or his Apostles, with any gehenna pun- 
ishment ? How then do you account for the fact, admit- 
ed by yourself, that the Jews never threatened Christ or 
his Apostles with gehenna punishment, if gehenna * was 
uniformly used by the Jews in the time of our Saviour to 
mean future punishment 1 ' They must have been very 
modest, and very diffident, to hear him say, * How can 
ye escape the damnation of gehenna,' yet never retort- 
ed the threatening upon him. Like you, the Jews could 
say — ' We seldom use the word gehenna or hell in our 
discourses.' And yet you assure us, it was * uniformly ^ 
used among the Jews in that day. Their uniform silence^ 
is at point blank variance with your assertion. Again 
you say, 

' 3. My third reason for rejecting your definition of 
gehenna is this. You have no evidence that a perpetual 
fire was kept up in the valley of Hinnom at the time om 



17 

Saviour was on earth.' Answer. ' You have no evidence^ 
that gehenna in the days of the Saviour meant ' the spir- 
itual punishment of the wicked both in this world, and the 
next existence/ This is death again by your own hands. 
But again : whether a perpetual fire was, or was not 
kept up in the valley of Hinnom in the days of our Sa- 
viour, is of no consequence to my views of gehenna. 
Whether you believe, or disbelieve ihis opinion on Rabbi 
Kemchi's authority, does not aftect them, as we shall see 
presently. You are here, only prolonging your battles 
with a man of straw. You say, 

' 4. My fourth reason for rejecting your definition of 
gehenna is this. All the truly qualified biblical critics 
from the earliest days of research to the present time have 
given a different exposition.' A different exposition from 
what, sir 1 From the one you have been all along impu- 
ting to me, which is, ' being burned in the valley of Hin- 
nom.' But this is not my definition, but your own mis- 
representation ; and they must be poor biblical critics, who 
do not give a different exposition from it. But, 1. You for- 
got sir, that the exposition given of gehenna by the bib- 
lical critics, is as diflferent from your views of gehenna 
as it is from mine. What biblical critic defines gehenna 
to mean — ^ spiritual punishment both in this life and the 
world to come V 2. It is truly amusing, to see you find- 
ing fault with me, or rather with your own misrepresen- 
tation of my views of gehenna, as different from that of 
the biblical critics^ — giving different views from them 
yourself; and yet skulking behind their authority for 
protection. But their authority would weigh little with 
you, where Unitarianism was the point in discussion. 

3. But why fight so many battles with a man of straw ? 
Why shun an encounter with my views of gehenna as a 
child would a fancied ghost 1 Your well-known courage, 
stimulated by the critics, commentators, and Cambridge 
scholars, has not emboldened you so much as to name 
my views of gehenna. 

Such are all your reasons, for rejecting what you 
call my views of gehenna, but which is a gross misrep- 
resentation. I must now have my own way for a sea- 
son. I have stated above, in very plain terms, that you 
have grossly misrepresented my views of gehenna pun- 
2* 



18 

ishment. That charge I shall now prove. The fairesi 
way to do this, will be, first to state your misrepresenta- 
tions in your own words — and second, quote from my 
books, the views of gehenna I have published to the 
world. The reader seeing both, can then judge for him- 
self, whether my charge is true or false. 

1. Let us see what your misrepresentations are, and 
in your own words. We are not liable to mistake here^ 
for they are often repeated. On p. 164, you said — ' I aim,' 
ed to prove, that gehenna must he taken in its literal 
sense^ as a place of temporal punishment near Jerusalem.' 
On p. 165, you said — ' / contend that gehenna ivas used^ 
(by Jesus) to denote a place of literal punishment in this 
world alone, out of the city of Jerusalem.' On p. 166, 
you said, I maintain * gehenna punishment means burning 
in the valley of Hinnom.^ And, ^ being burnt in the val- 
ley of Hinnom,' p. 167. On p. 168, you said, I hold 
that gehenna means * bei^ig destroyed by burning in the 
valley of Hinnom,' and, ' to be burned twice in the valley 
of Hinnom/ On p. 169, you represent me as believing, 
that gehenna means ' being burned in the valley of Hin- 
nom, literally set on fire of gehenna.' And on p. 170, 
you state my views to be, ' burnt alive in the valley of 
Hinnom.' I might refer to other pages, where the same 
or similar misrepresentations are given. But these in- 
stances are sufficient to show, what your misrepresenta- 
tions are. Let us now see, 

2. What views of gehenna punishment, I have given 
in my books, published years ago to the world. My dif- 
ficulty here is, in making a selection which is brief, as I 
cannot spare room to give my views in detail. For this, 
see my First Inquiry, Chap. ii. Sect. 1, and other publi- 
cations. , After quoting the 19th Chapter of Jeremiah, 
and also the 7th, from verse 29 to the end, I show at 
length — ' that Jeremiah used gehenna as an emblem of 
future temporal punishment to the Jews as a nation.' 
But I shall make the following quotation from my reply 
to Professor Stuart's Exegetical Essays. It not only con- 
tains a brief statement of my views of gehenna, but is a 
refutation of the same misrepresentations made by your- 
self. It stands thus, on p. 218 : 

' 1. Did the inspired writers in the Old Testament 
use the term gehenna, as meaning *^ tariarus, the place 



19 

of infernal punishment?'' No; you do not say, or 
insinuate any such thing. On the contrary, you con- 
tend for its meaning only the valley of Hinnom. And 
you wish your readers to beliet^e, that valley of Hinnom 
is the only sense your opponents attach to this word. 
Was such a misrepresentation o^ \he views of Universal- 
ists respecting this word, done designedly, or was it 
from ignorance of their sentiments? I wait for your an- 
swer to this, to know whether to exercise charity, or feel 
pity for the man and his cause, w^hich obliged him to 
state such a gross misrepresentation. It is on the author- 
ity of the Jewish Rabbins, not the Old Testament writ- 
ers, the sense of tartarus is given by you to gehenna in 
the New Testament. 

' 2. The inquiry must then be, In what sense, or senses, 
did the Old Testament writers use the term gehenna ? 
I find they used it, 1st. Literally for the valley of Hin- 
nom, as the word signifies. The texts where it is so 
used I need not cite, as on this point there is no dispute 
between us. They may all be seen in my First Inquiry. . 

*2d. I find gehenna used in a figurative or emblematic- 
al sense, to describe the temporal miseries God was to 
bring on the nation of the Jews, for their sins. Some 
of their greatest sins and abominations had been commit- 
ted in this valley, and the place is used to set forth the 
WTetchedness of their condition, when God's judgments 
came upon them. It was a fit emblem to set forth this, 
by your own description of the valley.' 

I shall only add the following from p. £19. * That 
gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, should be used as a 
symbol to set forth the temporal miseries of the Jews, can 
never be cgnsistently objected to by you. Do you ask 
vv^hy ? Because on p. 143 you speak of your hell in a fu- 
ture state being symbolized by it.' And surely, Mr. 
Whitman cannot object to this, for he tells us, p. 165, 
and other places — 'Jesus employed gehenna as an ew- 
blem of the spiritual punishment of the wicked, both in 
this world and the next existence.' 

Such are my views of gehenna, whether right or 
wrong. They were not adopted to-day, but were pub- 
lished to the world years ago ; and with them Mr. Whit- 
man no doubt was familiar. In writing the above reply 



20 

It) Professor Stuart-s misrepresentation, little did I think 
I was preparing a reply to the misrepresentation of the Rev. 
Bernard Whitman. Such a misrepresentation comes with 
an ill grace from Unitarians, who have complained so bit- 
terly of orthodox misrepresentations. But, widely as the 
two sects differ in their opinions, in one thing they are 
agreed, to misrepresent the opinions of Universalists. 
Mr. Whitman, your misrepresentations are so palpable, 
and so often repeated, that no remarks are necessary to 
point them out. Any child can perceive them. T have 
tried to devise an apology, but I find this impossible. I 
even find it difficult to account for your attack on Uni- 
versalists, and why you should select my First Inquiry as 
the subject of your misrepresentation. I have asked, 

1. Was Mr. Whitman ignorant of my opinions ? No. 
It would be dishonorable to his character, to suppose he 
attacked a book, and was ignorant of the sentiments it 
contained. You are not one of those Unitarians, who 
have ' not perused the work, even to this day.' I have 
asked, 

2. Can Mr. Whitman have any personal grudge to 
gratify against me, or the sect of Universalists 1 As for 
myself, I cannot indulge for a moment such a suspicion ; 
for we have always been on the most friendly terms when 
we have happened to meet. Nor am I aware, that Uni- 
versalists as a sect, have ever given him any provocation. 
It is true, the Rev. L. R. Paige, of Cambridgeport, 
pointed out some things in his writings, which looked 
like contradictions. But this was not a sufficient reason, 
why he should attack the whole sect of Universalists, Oy 
me in particular. Mr. Paige is of age to answer for him- 
self, whenever Mr. Whitman is at leisure to call on him. 
I have further asked, 

3. Could Mr. Whitman's vanity prompt him to attack 
Universalism, thinking he could refute that, which our 
Orthodox brethren had failed in accomplishing. No, 
for in this case, he would have magnified, not depreciated, 
my book. It was necessary no the gratification of his 
vanity. I have asked, 

4. Did Mr. Whitman's ardent love of truth, and ha- 
tred of what he deemed error, prompt him to this attack 
on Universalism ? This is doubted ; for an ardent love 



21 

of truth, would have prevented him from misrepresent- 
ing my opinions. Besides^ the question occurs, Why has 
he delayed his attack so long, for he has been familiar 
with my views of gehenna punishment for ten long years ? 
Why notice now, what Unitarians have deemed unwor- 
thy of notice so long ? Something of late must have 
roused Mr. Whitman against Universalism. What then 
has done this ? What led him to misrepresent my opin- 



ions 



7 



5. I can devise no other cause, but the rapid spread of 
Universalism. It has been said, and with some appear- 
ance of truth, — ' Universalism bids fair to he the pre- 
vailing heresy of the age.' And some have alleged, that 
my First Inquiry has contributed to its prevalence. I 
suspect. Unitarians, like some other sects, have got 
alarmed at its rapid progress, and Mr. Whitman thinks 
himself competent to put down the heresy. I admit 
there is just cause for alarrh ; but will it ever be put down 
by misrepresentation ? Is it not alarming, that some 
people composing Unitarian societies, should be Univer- 
salists ? Does it not add to the alarm, that some of them 
are even found in Orthodox societies, yea, are members 
of their churches 1 And, our Orthodox friends have 
long alleged, that some Unitarian misisters are Univer- 
salists. 

We presumt it to be more than an idle rumor, that 
Mr. Whitman, Unitarian minister at W^nltham, is him- 
self a Universalist. And what renders the case more 
alarming still, sometimes a society dismisses an Orthodox 
or Unitarian minister, and settles a Universalist in his 
place. And for one Universalist, or Universalist minister 
who goes over to them, two come from them over to us. 
But what renders the case desperately alarming is, none 
of them seem able to refute Universalism, either from 
pulpit, press,' or in public debate. Many have tried to 
refute it, and the very attempts have only tended to the 
increase of the heresy. What a melancholy state of 
things. 

I am aware, very few Unitarian ministers openly avow 
Universalism in their preaching. But even this fills the 
ranks of Universaljsts. People, and even our Orthodox 
brethren, give Universalists credit for their hone^ty^ in 



22 

openly teaching their sentiments. But they have long 
blamed Unitarians, for disguising theirs. It is said, they 
never openly avowed Unitarianism, until driven to it by 
controversy ; and perhaps it may be the same, in their 
openly avowing Universalism. Most people like frank, 
open honesty in religion, and prefer the Sect of the Uni- 
versalists on that very account. They also perceive, 
that Universalists are willing to live on friendly Chris- 
tian terms with Unitarians ; but this is not generally rer 
ciprocated on their part. Some decline an exchange of 
pulpit services with the Universalists, and with the same 
breath, loudly and bitterly complain, that their Orthodox 
brethren will not exchange with them. They seldom 
exchange with Universalists, except when the people de- 
mand it, and the dread of a dismission produces a com- 
pliance. Besides, Universalists in some towns, have aid- 
ed in the building of Unitarian meeting-houses, and 
have been denied the use of them for an evening lecture, 
when not occupied by the Unatarians.'* In some cases, 
promises were held out, until Universalists had bought, 
their pews, and afterwards no regard was paid to them. 
The patience of some Universalists have been tried to 
long suffering ; and seeing no remedy, have united and 
built a house for themselves. And some Unitarians, dis- 
gusted at this treatment of Universalists, have abandoned 
the Unitarians and joined with theni. Thus the very 
opposition to Universalism, accelerates its progress. 
Have Universalists isver treated' Unitarians in this man- 
ner 1 Did they ever deny Unitarians the use of their 
meeting-houses when not occupied by themselves ? If 
they have, I blush for such Universalists.t 

* To this remark, we are happy to say, there are some honorable 
exceptions. In several places we have preached in Unitarian 
houses. ft is also our opinion, that tlie best men among Unita- 
rians, disapprove of this iliiberality of one sect of Christians to- 
wards another. They are willing people should hear all sides and 
judge for themselves ; and some Unitarian ministers are willing 
to exchange pulpit services with the Universalists. 

f Mr. Sabine frankly confessed to me, that he had never seen 
before, such candor and liberality as was manifested by the Uni- 
versalists in Charlestown. When he announced his intention to 
preach down my First Inquiry, and was refused a suitable meeting- 
house by his own. orthodox brethren, they unanimously voted him 



23 

I am truly sorry, Mr. Whitman has proclaimed war 
against Universalists. But I cannot believe most Uni- 
tarians approve of his conduct ; and certainly never will 
approve of his misrepresentations. It is my consolation, 
that I have never given him the lea^t provocation to 
this, but always have esteemed him, and wished to main- 
tain Christian friendship with him. If we must have 
war, all will exonerate me, for the first gun has been 
fired by himself. It is true, it is only blank cartridge, 
mere misrepresentation, but still it shows nos^xy friend- 
ly disposition. He no doubt would have charged with 
grape-shot, had my book furnished it. In plain lan- 
guage, his misrepresentations show, that he cannot 
meet my views fairly, and this must eventually injure 
himself, and the cause he has espoused. It v/ijl turn out, 
for the furtherance of Universalism still more, for people 
will see, it cannot be refuted by Mr. Whitman with all 
his aid from the University. When he shuns battle with 
my views of gelienna, and fights with his own shadow, 
people will ask — * What can this mean 1 We can ac- 
count for it in no other way but this : — either weakness 
in him, or truth in the sentiments he opposes. He has 
shunned battle with nothing that is Orthodox ; but be- 
fore he can do any thing with Universalism, he is oblig- 
ed to misrepresent it.' But perhaps Mr. Whitman is to 
set the battle in array under his second division of the 
subject, to which I shall now give attention. He says, 

* II. In the second place, I will mention a few reasons 
for believing that our Saviour used gehenna to mean 
spiritual punishment both in this life and the world to 
come.' (p. 72.) You immediately add — * this is the 
testimony of the Jewish writers of antiquity.' But are 
you not mistaken ; for what Jewish writer testifies — 
* that our Saviour used gehenna to mean spiritual pun- 
ishment both in this life and the world to come ? ' It is 
certain you quote no such testimony from them ; but on 
the contrary say — * I go to their writings to ascertain 

the use of theirs. He accepted of it; and he was allowed to take 
his own time, and his own way to accomplish his purpose. The 
result of his labors is well known, and need not be here men^ 
tioned. 



24 

the exact meaning of a Hebrew word in their day, and 
for no other purpose. I have nothing to do with their 
theology or religious sentiments.' Unless ' their day/ 
and * the days of the Saviour/ then are the same, you 
go to their writings in vain : and if you adopt their 
sense of gehenna, how can you avoid the theology they 
connect with it ? Moreover, as there is no other sure 
method of arriving at the exact meaning of gehenna, but 
from the Jewish writings of antiquity, this is confessing 
your abandonment of the Bible, in deciding the question 
at issue. 

You ask, * What works then have we to which refer- 
ence can be made in this controversy ? ' You answer 
— ' We have the Targums and Talmuds.^ Again, you 
ask, * What then are the Targums 1 ' You answer — 
* They are Chaldee paraphrases on different portions of 
the Old Testament.' PriJeaux, sir, enumerates eight 
Targums; and some critics increase their number to 
ten. But you only select three of them, which no doubt 
you deemed best adapted to your purpose. There are 
two Talmuds, and you use them. You also quote some 
other Jewish writings, which will be noticed in their 
place. Now, as you say, * I go to these writings to ascer- 
tain the exact meaning of a Hebrew word in their day, 
and for no other purpose.' The principal point of in- 
vestigation here, is, did any of these Jewish writings ex- 
ist in the days of the Saviour ? The antiquity of your 
Jewish writings, is the question in discussion ; and if 
you do not prove that they existed in our Lord's day^ 
how can they prove how gehenna was then used among 
the Jews, or in what sense it was used by the Saviour I 
Let the reader bear constantly in view, that the age of 
your Jewish writings, is now the point in dispute. You 
say,- 

' In the first place, there is the Targum of Jonathan 
ben Uzziel.' The question is, When did he live and 
write 1 You say, — * He flourished in Jerusalem, within 
thirty years of Christ.' This is your assertion, and this 
has been asserted by some others. But why did you 
conceal from your readers, that critics of the first emi- 
nence, have given a very different account of the age of 
Jonathan's Targum ] Some critics, sir, date this Targum 



25 

in the seventh century after Christ, and you seem to admit, 
none of the Christian fathers quote it for the first four 
centuries. But, as you bring up again the date of this 
Targum, when you make your quotations from it, I shall 
reserve what I have to say further about it, until its 
proper place. You say, 

* In the second place, there is the Targum of Joseph 
the blind.' Well, when did he live and write ? In the 
days of the Saviour ? No ; you frankly confess — * this 
author flourished about three hundred years after Christ J 
But this, sir, is giving up the ship ; and it is sinking her 
to add — * he was a teacher of the law at Babylon,' and 
his Targum, * is probably a collection of extracts from 
his disciples' manuscripts.' Concerning this Targum, 
Prideaux says — ' Who this Joseph was, or when he 
lived, is not said.' And Calmet remarks •- — 'This au- 
thor is much more modern, and less esteemed, than Jon- 
athan ben Uzziel.' And Home adds — ' The younger 
Buxtorf, and after him, Bauer and Jahn, are of opinion 
that the whole is a compilation of later times : and this 
sentiment appears to be the most correct.' You say, 

* In the third place, there is the Jerusalem Targum. 
This must have been written as late as the sixth century, 
because events are referred to, and geographical names 
are inserted, which could not have had an earlier date.' 
Well, by your own confession, this Targum did not ex- 
ist until the sixth century after Christ. But Home says 
— ' It is more likely not to have been written before the 
eighth or ninth century.' Would it not answer the same 
purpose, sir, to refer us to the Targum of the Rev. Ber- 
nard Whitman, who flourished at Waltham, in the year 
eighteen hundred and thirty-three. But the very late 
date of this Targum does not discourage you ; for you 
add — * its authority however may be regarded as great.' 
Why 1 You answer, ' for it consists principally of ex- 
tracts from earlier Targums and other Jewish writings.' 
You are not bold enough to assert, that they are as ear- 
ly as the days of the Saviour, but you say — 'in fact 
there is such a coincidence between many passages of 
this Targum, and passages in the New Testament, that 
some critics have supposed it was extant in the time of 
Christ.' A drowning man will catch at a straw. Pri- 

3 



26 

deaux, sir, gives these coincidences, — which are, Luke 
vi. 38. Rev. xx. 6, 14; v. 10. Matt. vi. 9 : compared with 
this Targum, on Gen. xxxviii. 26. Deut. xxxiii. 6. Exod. 
xix. 6, and Deut. xxvi. 6. But he accounts for these coin- 
cidences of language thus : ' The truth of the matter 
most probably is, there were sayings and phraseologies 
which had attained among the Jews in our Saviour's 
time, and continued among them long after ; and hence 
our Saviour and his apostles, and afterwards- the author 
of this Targum, had them as from the same fountain.^ 
But, unfortunately for you, not one of these coincidences 
mentions anything about gehenna. And it is still more 
unfortunate, there is no proof, that this Targum * con- 
sists principally of extra«cts from earlier Targums.' And 
if even this was proved, it can never be proved the 
quotations you make about gehenna, are part of those 
earlier Targums. ^ So your straw fails you for support. I 
suspect, sir, your ' thorough investigation^ was not very 
thorough. 

But, after all the importance which you seem to give 
to Joseph's Targum, and the Jerusalem Targum, we 
shall see in the sequel, you avoid quoting them. For 
this reason, I despatch what I have to say about them 
in this place. It was ill-judged in you to introduce these 
Targums — confess their late dates — yet wish your read- 
ers to believe, they prove in what sense our Lord used 
the term gehenna. They may certainly ask, Does Mr. 
Whitman think us fools I But you say, 

^ Let me now offer a few explanatory "remarks respect- 
ing the Talmuds.' Well, when were they written? By 
your own confession, the Mishna pf the Jerusalem Tal- 
mud was not made until * about the year two hundred.' 
And the Gamara^ its second part, not until * a century 
afterwards.' And you also confess, the Babylonish Tal- 
mud was not made until about — * the year four hun- 
dred,' or * a century later.' But even these dates are 
somewhat too early, as will appear from some quotations 
to be made in the sequel. Farther discussion about this 
is altogether unnecessary. Conscious their dates did 
not suit your purpose, you add — ' but as both these Tal- 
muds are composed chiefly of sayings and writings, much 
older than the date of their compilation, they are good 



27 

authority for ascertaining the meaning of Hebrew words, 
at a much earlier period.' Mr. Whitman, the question 
is, Did these sayings and writings exist in the days of 
the Saviour 1 This is the point to be proved. If these 
sayings and writings are now in existence, quote them. 
And if they are not, what do you know about them ? 
How can sayings and writings, about which you know 
nothing, ever prove in what sense our Lord used the 
word gehenna 1 Is not this getting along at a miserable 
rate, to talk about sayings and writings you have never 
seen, nor read, nor knew what they contained. This, 
sir, is not standing still, — it is sinking. 

Before quoting your Jewish writers, you give us the 
following preparatory remarks. I shall quote them entire, 
as they deserve some notice. You say, pp. 175, 176, 

* Now I wish you to understand distinctly the use I 
am about to make of these Hebrew writings of antiquity, 
I do not search them to ascertain what the Jews believed 
concerning future retribution. No. Their opinions 
weigh nothing with me in this controversy. I go to 
them for the express purpose of learning what meaning 
the Jewish nation gave to the word gehenna in the days 
of our Saviour, and immediately after. He was born of 
Jewish parents, and would use language as understood 
by his brethren according to the flesh, unless he signi- 
fied to the contrary. This he has not done in the pres- 
ent instance. Now this is the only true and sure way 
of coming at the real meaning of words in any language. 
Let me give you an illustration. You find the word 
atonement but once in our English translation of the 
Christian scriptures. You wish to know what meaning 
was attached to this term in the time of the translators. 
How can you determine this question ? By examining 
other books which were written near that period. You 
take the plays of Shakspeare. You there find the 
word thus divided, at-one-ment. This shows you that 
the people of that day meant by the word atonement, re- 
conciliation, bringing together those who were at variance, 
making them one. Now, I am about to pursue a similar 
course in relation to the word gehenna ; and all judges 
of this subject will assure you there is no other certain 
W^J of arriving at its true meaning.' 



28 

On this paragraph I remark, 1. I ^understand dis- 
tinctly^ the use you are about to make of the Hebrew 
writings of antiquity. I understand, you *go to them for 
the express purpose of learning what meaning the Jewish 
nation gave to the word gehenna in the days of our Sa- 
viour, and immediately after.' I also understand, Jesus 
was born of Jewish parents, and would use language as 
understood by his brethren according to the flesh, but 
learned from their own scriptures, unless he signified to 
the contrary. This he has not done in the present in- 
stance. But I cannot understand, that Jesus adopted a 
sense given to gehenna by the Jews, whether it was 
scriptural or not. Nor can I understand, that the Jews, 
in our Lord's day, used gehenna to designate future pun- 
ishment ; or, that you can quote any Jewish writing that 
existed in his day, which teaches such a sense of gehen- 
na. And if such a writing did exist, I cannot under- 
stand it to be scriptural or rational, to interpret our 
Lord's words by Jewish traditions which he condemned. 
I hope you will understand this distinctly. 2. I am not 
surprised, you Begin to feel uneasy in the prospect of 
making your quotations from Jewish writings, and make 
apologies about them. They are so silly and ridiculous, 
as to give a man of common sense the Jidgets for a month. 
Keep yourself perfectly easy, sir, for I have no suspicion 
you believe a word of them. I suspect, your uneasiness 
chiefly arose from perceiving, that your quotations did 
not prove your spiritual punishment ; hence* you now 
drop this phrase and use another, ^ future punishment J 

3. But observe, sir, in the above paragraph you as- 
sume what you ought to have proved. You assume, that 
the Targums and Talmuds you are about to quote, exist- 
ed in the days of the Saviour. But why assume this, 
which is the very point in discussion 1 Why assume 
this, sir ; for by your own confession, most of these writ- 
ings did not exist until several hundred years after the 
days of the Saviour. I do not blame you for not acom- 
plishing'an impossibility. No, I only blame you for at- 
tempting it. AH built on this assumption of course falls 
to the ground ; and your all, you know, is built upon it. 
But having assumed, that the Targums and Talmuds 
existed in the days of the Saviour, you go on to assuma, 
that these writings must explain what was the sense of 



29 

gehenna in his day. Yes, you aver, they must as cer- 
tainly do this, as Shakspeare's plays must explain what 
was the sense of the word atonement when our English 
version of the New Testament was made. But this is 
imposing on your readers ; for it appears the Targums 
and Talmuds did not exist, until two or more hundred 
years after the days of the Saviour. In preaching at 
Waltham,do you use Scripture words, in a new and 
strange sense, which they are to have three or four hun- 
dred years hence ? If you do not, why impute this to 
the Saviour ? But if he did this, why did he not say as 
you do — 'I have nothing to do with their Theology. 
Their opinions \veigh nothing with me in this controver- 
sy.' But, 

4. The word atonement is a very unfortunate exam- 
ple selected for illustration. Gehenna, like the word 
atonement, is a compound word ; but divide it as you may, 
you cannot make it mean ^ spiritual punishment,' either 
in this world or the world to come. Again. If for want 
of Scripture usage of the word atonement in the New 
Testament, you must recur to Shakspeare's plays to ascer- 
tain its meaning, there was no occasion to recur to the 
Targums and Talmuds to ascertain the Scripture sense 
o^ gehenna ; for you confess it occurs twelve times in 
the New Testament. But a man of your scholarship, 
could recur to the original for the true sense of both 
words. Now, sir,ifyi;(^fa/«^6, rendered atonement, occurs 
four times in the New Testament,* and gehenna, render- 
ed hell, occurs twelve times, here was sufficient Scripture 
usage to ascertain the meaning of both words. There was 
not the least occasion to go to Shakspeare, the Targums 
and Talmuds, to find their true meaning. And if this 
range of Scripture usage was too limited or uncertain, you 
could extend it to the Old Testament inj both cases. 
But this would have ruined your whole system. 

5. You tell us — * I am about to pursue a similar 
course in relation to the word gehenna ; (as with the 
word atonement,) and all judges of this subject will as- 
sure you there is no other certain way of arriving at its 
true meaning.' If this, sir, be true, then abandon the 
Protestant maxim, that ^ the Bible is its own best inter- 

* Besides, katallasso occurs six times for your assistance. 
3* 



30 

preter.^ If this is true, adopt the Catholic maxim, that 
' the Bible must be explained by tradition/ yea, by Jew- 
ish tradition/ If this be true, Bible Societies ought to 
take the hint, and have the Targums and Talmuds bound 
up with the Bible. If this be true, Jesus Christ, after 
condemning the whole mass of Jewish traditions, adopt- 
ed the sense given to gehenna in their traditions several 
hundred years after his death. But, as you risk your 
reputation, in saying— * all judges of this subject will 
assure you there is no other certain way of arriving at 
the true meaning of gehenna but by the Targums and 
Talmuds/ I must give this some attention. Now, sir, 1 
assert, no judge of this question will give such a decis- 
ion. I submit it to the following judges, and no one 
will say they can be biassed in favor of my opinions, 

1. Was Dr. Campbell a judge 1 Let us hear his de- 
cision ? In his thijd dissertation, he says — ' The opin- 
ion of Grotius and some learned Rabbis, unsupported 
by either argument or example, nay in manifest contra- 
diction to both, is here of no weight. Scripture usage 
alone must decide the question.' No, says Mr. Whit- 
man — ' Targum and Talmudic usage alone must decide 
the meaning of gehenna.' You expressly say — 'All 
judges of this subject will assure you there is no other 
certain way of arriving at its true meaning.' 

2. Is Dr. Jahn a judge? In his dissertation on the 
importance and best method of studying the original 
languages of the Bible, he says — ' Every thing depends 
on the usus loquendi ; so that whatsoever is not directly 
or indirectly deduced from it, is necessarily uncertain and,, 
unstable. The usus loquendi, however, is a simple A^V 
toricalfact. To discover what it was, we must investi- 
gate what meaning the ancient Hebrews attributed to the 
words and phrases of their vernacular tongue.' See the 
whole dissertation. 

3. Is Professor Stuart a judge ? In his notes on Jahn's 
dissertation, and modifying some of his remarks, he says 
— " ' I admit we have but very scanty remains of the an- 
cient Hebrew tongue : but, in the volume which we have, 
are comprised a great variety of authors, and all the va- 
rieties of composition. It is from a comparison of these 
that the usus loquendi of the Hebrews is acquired ; just 



31 

as in reading Herodotus, and Homer, and Xenophor?^ 
we obtain the usus loquendi of the old Grecians, and At- 
tic writers/ He adds — * it is not correct to say, that 
there are no good witnesses to the usus loquendi of the 
ancient Hebrew except the kindred dialects. The Hell- 
enistic Greek in the Septuagint, in the Apocrypha, and 
in the New Testament, written by Jews who either spoke 
the Hebrew itself, or a mixture of it with the Syriac or 
Chaldee, which so nearly resembles it, is, in a great mul-^ 
titude o/instances, a good witness to the point in question. 
The words indeed are Greek, but the language, i. e. the 
method of expression, the coloring, and the sense of the 
words are all conformed to the Hebrew mode of expres- 
sion and thinking.' I might quote much more to the 
same purpose from Mr. Stuart, Did he, in is controver- 
sy with the Unitarians, say as you do — ' all judges of 
this subject will assure you there is no other certain way 
of arriving at the true meaning of the Scriptures respect- 
ing Christ's divinity, but by consulting the Targums and 
Talmuds?' Had he done this, they would have deemed 
him insane. But, 

4. Is Home a judge 1 Let us hear him directly on 
the point in question. In his Introduction to the critic- 
al study of the Holy Scriptures, vol] ii. pp. 298, 299, he 
thus writes — * In availing ourselves of the assistance to 
be derived from the Jewish writings, we must take care 
not to compare the expressions occurring in the New 
Testament too strictly with the Talmudical and Cabba- 
listieal modes of speaking ; as such comparisons, when 
carried too far, tend to obscure rather than to illustrate 
the sacred writings. Even our illustrious Lightfoot is 
said not to be free from error in this respect ; and Dr. 
Gill has frequently incumbered his Commentary with 
Rabbinical quotations. The best and safest rule, per- 
haps, by which to regulate our reference to the Jewish 
writers themselves, as well as those who have made col- 
lections from their works, is the following precept, deliv- 
ered by Ernesti : * We are to seek for Jielp,^ says he, ' ow- 
ly in those cases, where it is absolutely necessary ; that is, 
where our knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew tongues 
affords no means of ascertaining an easy sense, and one 
that corresponds with the contexts See the whole para- 



32 

graph. Have you, sir, observed Ernesti's precept ? Was 
it absolutely necessary for you to go to the Targums and 
Talmuds for the true sense of gehenna ? Did the Greek 
and Hebrew Scriptures afford no means of ascertaining 
an easy sense, and one that corresponds vi^ith the con- 
text 1 No man will say so, who has paid attention to 
the subject. It was absolutely necessary, for you to go 
to the Targums and Talmuds to establish your system 
about gehenna ; for without them you confess it cannot 
be established. 

5. I shall add a judge from your own sect. In the 
'Unitarian Miscellany' there is an article headed * Causes 
of early errors in religion^ The writer concludes his 
article thus. * Christians should study with care the 
grounds of their faith, and, rejecting all systems of human 
invention in which these errors are found, should seek 
for truth in the Bible alone. Here, and here only, we 
have the religion of Jesus and his Apostles, unimpaired 
by the ravages of time, and unperverted by the vain im- 
agination and wayward designs of men.' Have you 
sought 'for truth in the Bible alone, respecting gehenna 
punishment ? No, sir ; you have sought for it alone in the 
Jewish writings of antiquity, and expressly say, p. 183 
— *I know of no other way of arriving at the meaning of 
Hebrew words and phrases.' 

Here, sir, is a whole bench of judges, Scotch, English, 
German, and American, whose decision is unanimous 
against your assertion. Most critics adopt Ernesti's 
precept, and recur to the Jewish writings only when 
Scripture usage fails. They seldom recur to them to de- 
termine any doctrinal point, but only where Jewish rites, 
ceremonies and customs are the points in question. You 
are inexcusable, and self-condemned, in appealing to the 
Targums and Talmuds on the subject of gehenna. Were 
I to say — * all judges will assure you, that the true sense 
of the word logos, John i. 1, is that given in the Tar- 
gums and Talmuds,' what would you say ? To be con- 
sistent, you must abandon your Unitarianism, for these 
writings assert the divinity of the Messiah from the w^ord 
memra, logos, or word. See Basnage's History of the 
Jews, pp. 173, 174. Unitarians would laugh the Trini- 
tarians to scorn, were they to prove the divinity of Christ 



33 

by the Targums and Talmuds, saying — ' all judges of 
this subject will assure you there is no other certain way 
of arriving at its true meaning.' But I must drop this 
topic, and attend to your quotations from the Targums 
and Talmuds. I shall quote the whole of them at once, 
from pp. 176 — 180. You say, 

* In the first place, take a few extracts from the Tar- 
gum of Jonathan. Read the following declaration. 
' Abram saw gehenna belching forth smoke and burn- 
ing coals, and sending up sparks to punish the wicked 
therein.' Surely he did not see the valley of Hinnom, 
for this would make him witness what no one pretends 
took place until a thousand years after his time. Hear 
the following remark : ^ The wicked are to be judged, 
that they may, be delivered to eternal burning in gehen- 
na.' This surely cannot refer to the valley of Hinnom. 
Very many passages occur in which the wicked are 
threatened with the punishment of gehenna. But you 
want only those which clearly prove that future punish- 
ment was intended. Listen then to the three following 
sentences : ' Like embers in the fire of gehenna, which 
God created the second day of the creation of the 
world.' * The earth from which springs forth food, 
and beneath which is gehenna, the cold of whose snow 
is changed so as to become like fire.' ' Thou shalt see 
them descending into the earth to gehenna.' Thus have 
I given you five extracts from this Jewish writer who lived 
about twenty or thirty years before Christ. They plain- 
ly prove that he considered gehenna a place or state of 
future punishment for the wicked. They are comments 
on the following passages of scripture. Isa. xxxiii. 14, 
17. Cant. viii. 6. Job. xxxviii. 5. Wolf's Bibliotheca 
Hebrse, Part II. pp. 1159—60. Wetstein's N. T. on 
Matthew v. 22. Bartoloccius Bibliotheca Rabbinica, 
Part II. p. 136. 

* In the second place, take an example from 3IedrascJt 
Thilliunij an allegorical exposition of the Psalms, ascrib- 
ed to Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, who was born the first 
year of the Christian era. These are his words : — * Cir- 
t:umcision is regarded with favor ; for the holy and bless- 
ed swear to Abram, that no one who was circumcised 
should descend into gehenna.' This cannot mean i\\% 



34 

valley of Hinnorn. Wetstein. Matt. iii. 9. Bartoloccius, 
Part IV. pp. 272, 320. 

' 111 the third place, take a few specimens from the 
Pierche Eliezer, written by Eliezer the great, whose 
wife was great-grand-daughter to that Simeon who took 
the infant Jesus in bis arms. He flourished about the 
year seventy-three. These are his sayings : — * On ac- 
count of the sabbath, Adam was delivered from the con- 
demnation of gehenna.' ' Whosoever confesses his 
transgressions and forsakes them is delivered from the 
condemnation of gehenna.' ' The holy and blessed 
God has dealt with me in truth and goodness, and deliv- 
ered me from the condemnation of gehenna.' ' All an- 
gels and seraphim shall not deliver the wicked from the 
condemnation of gehenna.' You see that in all these 
cases gehenna is evidently used to denote future punish- 
ment. Bartoloccius, Part I. pj). 184, 5. Part IV. 
Chronological Index. Wetstein. Matt, xxiii. 33. 

' In the fourth place, take a few instances from Beras- 
cliith Rabba, which was written by Rabbi Hoschiakia. 
He flourished about the year ninety-five. These are 
the sayings : — ' Hereafter Abram will sit at the gates 
of gehenna, and will suffer no circumcised Israelite to 
descend thither ; but what will he do with those who 
have sinned beyond measure 1 He will restore to them 
their foreskin, and they will descend into gehenna.' 
* Before paradise gehenna was created ; gehenna on the 
second day, paradise on the third day. This is the edge 
of the sword which turns every way, and which being 
directed towards them hereafter sets them on fire.' * In 
that hour gehenna ascends upon the wicked. Woe lo 
the world on account of the judgments thereof.' Wetr 
stein. Matt. iii. 9 ; v. 22; xxiii. 33. Luke xvi. 22. Bar- 
toloccius, Part II. pp. 788, 82, 134. 

' In the fifth place, take one example from Maase Tho" 
ra, ascribed to Rabbi Hakkodesh, who was born about 
the year one hundred and twenty. These are the words ; 
— ' God admitted Hiram, king of Tyre into paradise,^be- 
cause he had built the temple, and had been from the 
first, a pious man ; and he lived in paradise a thousand 
years ; but when afterwards he began to be filled with 
pride, and made himself a deity, he was expelled fi*Qm 



35 

paradise, and descended into gehenna.* Welstein. 
Luke xxiii. 43. Wolf. Bibloth. Heb. Part II. p. 839. 
Bartoloccias, Part III. p. 773. 

* In the sixth place, take a few passages from the Tal- 
muds, I will give them in the order they occur in the 
original works. Look then to the following examples : — 
* For those who observe the law, paradise is prepared, 
but for transgressors, gehenna.' Does this refer to this 
world or the next ? * While you apply yourselves with the 
greatest labor and trouble to the study of the law, and 
yet neglect to fulfil it, you will become heirs of gehenna 
at your death, while you have enjoyed no pleasure in 
this life.' This admits of no doubt. 'Heretics, traitors, 
apostates, epicurians, those who deny the law, and those 
who deny the resurrection of the dead, those who sepa- 
rate themselves from the doctrines of the congregation, 
and those who cause terror among the dwellers upon 
earth, and those who have sinned and caused many to 
sin, as Jeroboam, the sonof Nebat, and his companions ; 
these all descend into gehenna and are punished therein, 
ages of ages, as it is written. And they shall go forth, 
and look upon the carcasses of the men that have trans- 
gressed against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither 
shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an ab- 
horring unto all flesh.' This surely extends the mean- 
ing to a future world. * That ungodly man, Turnus Ru- 
fus, asked Rabbi Akiba, If your God loves the poor, 
why does he not feed them ? He replied, in order that 
we may be delivered through them from the judgment of 
gehenna.' ' Whoever carefully celebrates the three feasts 
to be instituted every sabbath is delivered from three 
calamities, namely, from the distress at the coming of the 
Messiah, from the judgment of gehenna, and from the 
war of gog and magog.' * God will redeem my soul from 
condemnation to gehenna, and he has delivered my body 
from condemnation to gehenna.' * God hath set the one 
against the other, that is, gehenna and paradise.' * You 
will escape the judgment of gehenna, and your portion 
will be with Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah.' * The 
fire of gehenna does not prevail against the sinners of Is- 
rael so as to consume them, but they are sent down into 
it, to be frightened and scorched awhile, on account of 



36 

their evil deeds : afterwards Abraham, who kept all the 
commandments and went down into the fire of the Chal- 
deans to sanctify the name of God, descends thither, and 
through his merits brings them forth from thence that he 
may establish the promise of the covenant.' I could ex- 
tend my quotations to an indefinite number ; but sufficient 
have been presented for all necessary purposes. Wetstein. 
Matt. 3. 9 ; 5. 22 ; 28. 15, 33 ; Luke 23. 43 ; Barto- 
loccius, Part I. p. 143, 148, 138, 133.' 

Such, sir, are the precious materials, furnished by your 
friends at the University. They cost them ' hours and 
days poring over the Targums and Talmuds,' etc. to col- 
lect. They are the results of a ' thorough investigation,^ 
which is to ' settle this controversy beyond all daubt.' 
Let us then examine these quotations ? They present two 
general topics for consideration — the dates of your Jew- 
ish writings, and the nature of the punishment described 
in your quotations from them. 

1. Let us examine the dates of your Jewish writings. 
If the reader asks — Were not the dates of these writings 
introduced above, and why introduce them again? I 
answer, Mr. Whitman introduces them twice^ but it is 
not my business to prescribe to him what course be ought 
to pursue, but to follow him in the one he has adopt- 
ed. I come then to my second task about dates. On 
p. 172, you said, it was Uhe testimony of the Jewish 
writers of antiquity, that our Saviour used gehenna to 
mean spiritual punishment both in this life and the world 
to come.' And on pp. 173 — 175, you mentioned a& 
your witnesses to prove this, the Targum of Jonathan 
ben Uzziel , the Targum of Joseph the blind ; the Jeru- 
salem Targum ; and the Jerusalem and Babylonish Tal- 
muds. Such was then the list of your witnesses; and 
in presenting it to the court, you said concerning Jo- 
seph's Targum, * this work has a peculiar value in our 
present inquiry.^ And concerning the Jerusalem Tar- 
gum, you observed — ' we must allow this Targum an 
authority on this question equal to the New Testament.^ 
Such, Mr. Whitman, were your statements then ? But 
how happens it, these witnesses, so important to your 
cause, are now absent ? Why have you dismissed them ? 
If it was because none of them existed in the days of 



37 

the Saviour, for the same reason all your witnesses ought 
to have been dismissed, and your cause abandoned. 
But if you have dismissed these two witnesses, you have 
introduced others. Their number is now increased to six, 
corresponding to your six classes of texts, and no doubt 
you have made the best possible selection of them. Let 
us now attend to them, and let the reader bear in mind, 
your Jewish writers must have lived in the days of the 
Saviour, and must be credible, competent witnesses to 
prove our Lord used gehenna to mean future punishment. 
You say, 

* 1. In the first place take a few extracts from the 
Targum of Jonathan.' Well, the question is, when did 
he live and write ? Above, p. 1T2, you said he * lived 
within thirty years of Christ.' But now, you say he 
lived, ' thirty years before Christ.' In addition, to what 
I said about Jonathan's Targum above, we have now a 
few remarks to make. 1. Eminent critics are against 
you, as to the antiquity of this Targum. Jahn says — 
* The work is a collection of interpretations of several 
learned men made towards the close of the third century, 
and containing some of a much older date, for that some 
parts of it existed as early as in the second century ap- 
pears from the additions.' With this statement, respect- 
ing the age of Jonathan's Targum by Jahn, Eickhorn, 
Bertholdt, Baur, and other eminent critics generally 
agree. Prideaux says, vol. 4. p. 578 — * These Tar- 
gums are the ancientest books the Jews have, next to 
the Hebrew Scriptures. This is certain of the Targum 
of Onkelos on the Law, and of Jonathan on the Prophets.' 
He adds, ' Onkelos' Targum is not only the first in the 
order of place, as being on the Pentateuch, but the first 
also in order of time and the ancientest that was written 
of all that are now extant.' Onkelos' Targum you do 
not quote at all, and for a good reason, because it says 
nothing about gehenna meaning future punishment; 
and yet, it is universally admitted to be the oldest and 
and best of all the Targums. Jonathan's Targum is 
your chief dependence to prove your position, yet is ad- 
mitted to be inferior to Onkelos' Targum, both as to age 
and value. 

But further ; as some critics place the Targums of On- 
4 



38 

kelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, as productions of the 
second or third century after Christ, so Prideaux says 
concerning all the Targums — * It was much above one 
thousand years after Christ, ere Christians knew anything 
of these Targums ; and scarce three centuries have pass- 
ed since they have become common among us.' Alas ! 
for the poor ignorant Christians, who lived in ancient 
times, for they wanted these writings to teach them the 
true sense of gehenna. Had you only lived a few bun- 
dred years ago, you would have been in the same deplor- 
able condition. 

2. But the nature of Jonathan's Targum is as much 
against you as its date. Prideaux says — * For, whereas 
the Targum of Onkelos is a strict version, rendering the 
Hebrew text word for word, Jonathan takes on him the 
liberty of a paraphrast, by enlargements and additions 
to the text ; for therein are inserted several stories, and 
also several glosses of his own, which do not much com- 
mend the work.' Calmet says — * The Targum of Jon- 
athan, son of Uzziel, is much more diffuse than Onkelos, 
and especially on the lesser prophets, where he takes 
great liberties, and runs on in allegories. It is thought 
that the Jewish doctors, who lived seven hundred years 
after him, have made additions to him.' It is evident, 
your quotations are glosses and additions made to the sa- 
cred text by somebody : and it matters but little, when 
they were made, or who made them. 

3. Jonathan has no Targum on Canticles and Job, as 
you intimate, p. 177. I presume, your friends at the 
University, furnished you with a mass of extracts taken 
from various Jewish writers; but you have ascribed that 
to Jonathan, which was taken from some other writer. 
The mistake is of little consequence, and a thing which 
might happen with a very accurate man, from mere in- 
advertence. It is similar, to a lawyer in court, ascribing 
a part of the testimony to one witness, which was given 
by another. By what witness was it given ? And by 
whomsoever it was given, how does it serve your cause 1 
You must make a Targum, and date it as far back as the 
days of the Saviour, before it can be of any use to you. 
It is very idle to quote anything which is more modern. 



39 

'2. In the second place, take an example from iJie- 
drasch ThiUium, an allegorical exposition of the Psalms, 
ascribed to Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, who was born the 
first year of the Christian era.' Indeed ! But, 1. Sup- 
posing this true, how do you know but his * allegorical 
exposition of the Psalms ' ought to be understood allegor^ 
ically ? Basnage shows, that some of the Jewish writ- 
ings were written so, and must be so understood. But 
to answer your purpose, this allegorical exposition must 
be understood * spiritually,' to suit your * spiritual pun- 
ishment.' 

2. Basnage, in his history, mentions a Jewish writer, 
of the name of Akiba. But his testimony would not be 
received in court, where a ten dollar bill was impending. 
Some say he was born A. D. 1, and died A. D. 120, or 140. 
Basnage says, p. 115 : — * St. Epiphanius makes him live 
before the captivity of Babylon. But he is grossly mis- 
taken. For this doctor was master of Aquila, that fa- 
mous interpreter, who translated the Holy Scriptures in 
the reign of Adrian.' And in p. 149, speaking of the 
University set up at Lydda, adds : — * Here it was, the 
famous Akiba taught, till Gamaliel drove him from his 
school.' But for what was he famous? Let Basnage 
answer : — * On pp. 515 — 520, among other things, he 
gives us the following account of Akibas' character. He 
became the forerunner to the famous robber Barchochc' 
has, who pretended to be ** the star that Balaam saw afar 
off.'' After relating Akibas' clandestine marriage with 
his master's daughter; his studying twenty-four years; 
his coming home with twenty-four thousand scholars, who 
all died between the passover and pentecost ; he adds : 
— * Akiba continued teaching and writing books, one 
whereof is cabbalistical, and is called Jetzirah, but it 
must be distinguished from that which is ascribed to the 
Patriarch Abraham, and bears the same name. He was 
so learned, as to give an account of the least letter of 
the law ; and it is boldly said, that God revealed to him, 
what he had concealed from Moses. We find in the 
Mischna and the Talmud, a thousand sentences ascribed 
to him, and which are looked upon as so many judicious 
^decisions. God had permitted him to enter paradise as 
Wejl as doctor Asai^ to whom he was to marry his sister. 



40 

An entire volume would not contain the remarkable things 
he has said and done. These are the commendations 
they give this doctor, who caused the desolation of his 
country, and supported the fraud of an impostor, who 
called himself the Messiah.' 

Basnage goes on and says, — ' Akiba became the fore- 
runner of the famous robber. and impostor Barchochebas, 
when his fame was at its height. These two men, fall- 
ing in with the prejudices of the people who were for a 
conquering Messiah, brought on a war which ended in 
their ruin. They mustered an army of two hundred 
thousand men, every one of whom 'could pluck up a 
cedar of Libanus, as they run on horseback. 'jg, Basnage 
adds, ' Adrian caused Akiba's skin to be torn off with 
an iron comb. And with him the honor of the law van- 
ished.' Moreover, he says, — * This war broke out in 
the year one hundred and thirty-four, in the seventeenth 
of Adrian's reign.' Basnage seems :to fix the year of 
Akiba's death ' to the year A. D. 135, or 136.' See pp. 
156, 531. There must be a mighty famine of proof in 
the land, and even at the University, when Akiba is one 
of your witnesses. For, 

3. I ask, on what solid ground do you ascribe such a 
work to Akiba on the Psalms. I have looked into Bas- 
nage's history with some care, but cannot find any such 
work ascribed to him, or any Akiba whatever. Wol-» 
fius, who professes to give a catalogue of all the works 
which pass under his name, ascribes no such work to 
him, or any person by the name of Akiba. Prideaux, 
vol. iv. p. 571, mentions as the seventh Targum, ' that on 
Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs.' Is the work you 
refer to a part of this Targum 1 If it is, Prideaux ascribes 
it to Joseph the one-eyed,' and adds ^— 'But who this 
Joseph was, or when he lived, is not said.' The Jews 
have a number of books, such us the hook Sohar, Jetzi- 
ra, Pirke, Abbot, etc. But critics deem them worthy 
of little confidence. And Basnage afii^ms — 'Some 
Rabbins have said, that perhaps these holy doctors never 
lived, and their miracles are a fabrication.' You say, 

' 3. In the third place, take a few specimens from the 
Pierche Eliezer, written by Eliezert the great, whose, 
wife was great grand-daughter to that Simeon who toak 



41 

the infant Jesus in his arms. He flourished about the 
year seventy-three.' Well, the year seventy-three^is not 
exactly in the days of the Saviour. But I pass this to 
notice — 1. Concerning Simeon, Basnage says, p. 147 
— * The Christians seeing this man to bear a considera- 
ble figure among the Jews, have fancied, that he was 
that old Simeon mentioned in the Gospel who waited 
for the kinojdom of God, and received Jesus Christ into 
his arms.' I presume you took your statement from Bas- 
nage. But why conceal from your readers, that Basnage 
goes on to show at length, that this is a mere fancy, 
and has no foundation in truth. 

2. But concerning Eliezert, and the work you ascribe 
to him, let us hear Basnage. He says, p. 510 — * The 
Jews endeavor to raise the glory of their desolate nation 
by making a great many learned men (on whom they 
father a great many fictitious .works) survive the ruin of 
the temple, and live in the beginning of the second cen- 
tury. Eliezer ^ the great Vwed Sit ihsit time. ^ Basnage 
goes on to relate some very ridiculous things concerning 
him. One of these is — ' This doctor owned, as he was 
dying, that he had the art of transplanting the harvest 
from one place to another.' See some more of such 
wonders, p. 293. I am not surprised, such a person 
should utter the nonsense you quote, but I am indeed 
surprised, you should refer to such authority. You give 
credit to the fictions of the Jews, made to gratify their 
pride for great names, and love for antiquity. You say, 

* 4. In the fourth place, take a few instances from 
Beraschith Rabba^ which was written by Rabba HuS" 
cMakia, He flourished about the year ninety-five. The 
year ninety-five however, is still further distant from the 
days of the Sayiour. But even this date is too early, 
according to the critics ; for, 

J . Prideaux, in a note, vol. iv. p. 565, says — ' Berasch- 
ith Rabba, is an old Rabbinical commentary on the book 
of Genesis.' And he shows, that as the author of this 
work quotes the Targumof Aquilla of Pontus, who lived 
about the year 130, it must be of a later date than the 
year ninety-five. Some think this writer was a disciple 

* Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, Chapters or sentences of R. Eliezer. 

4# 



42 

of R. Hakkadosb, and flourished A. D, 195. According 
to this account you are at least one hundred years wrong 
in your calculations. But, 

2. We shall see presently, from some quotations I 
shjill make, that the date of this, and indeed of all your 
Jewish writings, are very uncertain: that no Jewish 
writer you have quoted, existed in the days of the Sa- 
viour. You say, 

'5. In the fifth place, take one example from Masse, 
Thoray ascribed to Rabbi Hakkodesh, who was born 
about the year one hundred and twenty.' This is still 
more remote from the days of our Saviour. And if this 
person was horn in the year one hundred and twenty, 
his work could not be written until the year one hundred 
and fifty, or perhaps later. But this work is condemned 
by the critics as of little authority ; and it, and other 
Jewish writings you have quoted above, are said to be 
interpolated. The oldest of them, are not supposed to 
have existed before the end of the second century. You 
say, ^ 

* 6. In the sixth place, take a few passages from the 
Talmuds.' You ought to have said, not a few, for your 
principal quotations are from the Talmuds. But here 
you are silent about their dates. Perhaps you were 
ashamed to repeat them, as they are far too modern to 
be of the least service to your cause. You must be on 
the point o^ failing, to pay in coin from the Talmuds. 
How can they ever prove that * gehenna was uniformly 
Used by the Jews in the time of our Saviour to mean fu- 
ture punishment V A volume of quotations from them 
could not prove this : a thousand volumes could not prove 
our Lord used gehenna in this sense. 

I am aware you will say some critics place some of the 
Jewish writings as far back as the days of the Saviour. 
I then ask, I. Which of them all will you fix on ? I 
presume it will be the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. 
So be it ; but permit me to ask, why you have referred to 
any of the rest, unless it was to make a gre^t flourish 
about Jewish writers, who can prove nothing on the 
question at issue. But you are well aware, sir, that it is 
not proved Jonathan's Targum existed in the days of 
the Saviour ; and until this is satisfactorially established, 



43 

it cannot answer your purpose. To say the least, yon 
will admit, critics are much divided about the antiquity 
of Jonathan's Targum ; for if some say it existed in our 
Lord's day, others say it had no existence until several 
hundred years after, as shown above. The reader will 
then ask — Since doctors disagree, in what way shall the 
question in discussion be decided 1 We hope, attention 
to the following questions may enable us to decide this 
question almost to a moral certainty. Let us inquire, 
then, — 

2. What dependence is to be placed upon the dates 
which the Jews give to their writings ? If much confi- 
dence was placed in the accuracy of the Jews, about the 
dates of your ancient writings, why are critics so much 
divided about their antiquity ? On this question let us 
hear Basnage. He says. p. 2 — * The Uabbins, who are 
but little acquainted with their own history, vend their 
fables for matters of fact. Provided they are believed by 
their own nation, they do not trouble their heads to re- 
concile their narrations -with foreign historians, whom 
they mightily despise. They boldly make anachronisms, 
write the grossest absurdities in chronology ; and without 
any scruple of conscience, corrupt the truth of history.^ 
And p, 170, says — ^ The doctors that have made these 
collections of traditions, taking advantage of the igno- 
rance of their nation, have thrown upon the paper what- 
ever came into their heads, v/ithout troubling themselves 
with recDnciling their conjectures with foreign history, to 
which they were utterly strangers.' He adds, p. 531 — 
' It seems to be a labor sufficiently vain to criticise the 
faults of the Jewish chronology ; for we find no solid 
ground whereon to fix our foot. After a harsh and un- 
grateful task, a man is often obliged to perplex his calcu- 
lations. Bartoloci* is forced to build like the rest upon 
suppositions, or testimonies as uncertain as those which 
he confutes.' 

Prideaux agrees with Basnage. He says, vol. ii. p. 363, 

* Bartoloci is your oracle, for you are constantly referring to 
him in your quotations. You do not give us his words, that we 
may judge of what he says ; but Basnage here declares, he builds 
on suppositions and uncertain testimonies, as uncertain as those 
which he confutes. 



44 

* In historical matters it is not to be regarded what the 
Jews write or what they omit concerning them. That of* 
all nations in the world that have pretended to any sort 
of learning, they have taken the least care to record past 
transactions, and have done it very bunglingly^ and in a 
manner that looks more like fable than truth, wherever they 
, have pretended to it.' He adds, vol. iii. p. 126 — * To 
be out 200 or 300 years in their chronology is nothing 
with the Jews. They are certainly the worst historians^ 
and the worst accounters of time, that ever pretended to 
be either. The Jewish writers are far from being exact 
in their chronological computations ; for the sake of a 
round number, or an imaginary mystery, they often in 
such matters, shoot under or over the truth, at their 
pleasure.' 

What dependence, sir, can be placed on your Jewish 
writings, if one half of these statements are true ? And 
is it any wonder critics are divided in their opinions 
about their dates, where no certainty is to be obtained ? 
Their dates rest on Jewish tradition. The Scriptures 
say nothing about such writings. And the quotations 
just made, show, all hope is at an end, of obtaining any 
thing like certainty from Jewish accounts on the point 
in question. How, then, it will be asked, is this point 
ever to be decided T I answer by some other sources of 
evidence; by other writings which do not depend on un- 
certain tradition. Let us then inquire — 

3. Are there any Jewish writings of antiquity, the dates of 
which do not depend on uncertain Jewish tradition ? Did 
these writings exist in or about the days of the Saviour? 
And dothey, or do they notteach, thatgehenna then meant 
future punishment ? 1 pass over the Old and New Testa- 
ment Scriptures ; and also the Septuagent version ; as 
having no direct bearing on these questions. AH admit 
ge henna does not mean spiritual or future 'punishment ^ 
either in the Old Testament Hebrew, or the Greek ver- 
sion. And the question in discussion is, did our Lord in 
the New Testament use gehenna to designate future 
punishment ? You assert he did, and appeal to uninspir- 
ed Jewish writings to prove it. But it is very doubtful, 
that any of these writings existed in our Lord's day. I 
now make an appeal to Jewish writings, which all admit 



45 

existed in or about Christ's day. They contain no such 
sense ofgehenna. 

I mention first, Onkelos' Targum, which is allowed on 
all hands, to be the oldest and best of all the Targums. 
If any Jewish writing which you have quoted existed in 
our Lord's day, this did. But observe, sir, it never inti- 
mates that gehenna meant future punishment. No one 
alleges this, and we may be sure it does not, as you have 
not quoted it. But, I mention the writings of Philo Ju- 
deus and Josephus. Calmet says — ^ Philo was deputed 
with others to go to Rome, A. D. 40.' And Basnage 
thinks, p. 133, that he composed his works 'before the 
birth of Christ,' or when he was about * eight or ten years 
old.' Josephus w^as born at Jerusalem, A. D. 37, and all 
his works were composed between A. D. 70, and A. D, 
100. Here then are two writers, who lived in or about 
the days of the Saviour, and their writings show they 
were believers in future punishment. I may add, some 
of the apocryphal books were written about the same pe- 
riod, and it appears some of the writers believed also in 
a future retribution. Here, then, are Jewish writings of 
antiquity. They are the most valuable extant ; were 
written about thft pp.riod we want them, and ought to 
settle the question between us. Does Philo, Josephus^ 
or any of the apocryphal writers intimate, that * gehenna 
was used in their day to mean future punishment V No. 
This you know to be a fact, and you confess it, by taking 
no notice of these writings. But in view of this palpable 
fact, you assert, * gehenna was uniformly used by the 
Jews in the time of our Saviour to mean future punish« 
ment.' Was it honorable in you to conceal this fact 
from your readers? And in view of it how could you 
make such an assertion ? for all the wisdom of man can 
never reconcile your assertion with this fact. 

From what you say, p. 194, some may conclude that 
the learned gentlemen at Cambridge, had ransacked all 
Jewish antiquity for your assistance ; had so gleaned this 
field that nothing was left behind ; that like the locusts in 
Egypt, they had devoured every green thing. They have 
only, however, furnished you with a little of the rubbish 
of Jewish antiquity, which {qvi persons deem w^orth the 
labor of digging out. You would hiss out of the arena 



46 

of controversy the things they have furnished, if Unitiiri- 
anism was the question in discussion. But I shall in- 
quire, 

4. How is it known, that the Jews have assigned too 
early dates to their writings 1 What could induce them 
to do this 1 And is it certain they have done it ? 
The following quotations will answer all these questions : 

Basnage says, pp.|261, 262. — * The Jews are as much 
prejudiced for antiquity as the Christians; and men be- 
come venerable to them, in proportion to the remoteness 
of the age they lived in. Time is commonly more con- 
sidered than merit : and therefore, those that would be 
reverenced by the people, have fathered their writings on 
the ancient doctors, or, like the Christians, have ascribed 
new works to the old masters in order to give them more 
authority than they would have, if they had appeared 
with the true name of their authors. They have, for ex- 
ample, in the synagogue, some commentators upon 
Scripture called Medraschim^^ to which they ascribe a 
great antiquity. The Mechilta ought to have been copi- 
posed by the Rabbins, that were cotemporary with Juda 
the Saint. And yet the Gamara is cited in it, to 
prove a custom invented by the Rabbins for stoning. 
How then can we allow this book so venerable an an- 
tiquity, though in reality it is the ancientest of all their 
books?' 

Basnage proceeds-' — 'They have moreover in their 
synagogues, some great commentaries^ Midraschim Rob- 
hot which are said to be Nachmanide's who ought to 
have lived in the end of the third century. And yet 
they make mention of Dioclesian's empire, and Julian's 
attempt to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and in gen- 
eral, still call the Roman empire the empire of Edom, 
which shows that this work was not composed till after 
Constantino, under whom the Christians became masters 
of the empire.' 

Basnage adds — ' In the last place they have publish-' 
the sentences of the fathers Pirhe Abbot, They have 

* Medrash\s\gm?iQ& commentary, from a root darish^ because the 
commentary sought the sense of Scripture.' Your quotations 
are not translations of the sacred texts, but are taken from thesei 
Midraschim, You see now what the critics say of them, 



47 

also published other sentences under the name of R. 
Eliezer ; who must have lived in the time of Gamaliel II. 
since he was his brother-in-law. Nevertheless, the im- 
posture is so ill disguised, that he quotes Akiba, as one 
of the ancientest fathers, who mast have been the disci- 
ple of the great Eliezer. The fault is still more manifest, 
to quote Juda the prince, the son of Gamaliel, who was 
not born till Akiba was dead. He speaks of the king- 
dom of the Arabians, which was not erected till Mahom- 
et. We must excuse him for all the stories which he 
tells, viz. that the tempting serpent was as big as a Cam- 
el, and Adam used him for a pad : that God clothed the 
first man in a precious robe, and a cloud of glory ; but 
after his sin, dressed him in the serpent's skin. How- 
ever, his first robe was preserved in Noah's Ark. Cham, 
who seized upon it, gave it to Nimrod, who, wearing it, 
saw all the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of the air 
come and worship him as their lord and king.' A fine 
story. 

The love for great names and the pride of antiquity, 
led the Jews into palpable contradictions, as the above 
statements show. It may then be asked, if a book, pre- 
tending to have been written when this country was first 
settled by emigrants from Europe, mentioned George 
Washington and the battle of Bunker Hill, and that the 
writer was familiar with both, what confidence could be 
placed in his book ? None. It would lie on the shelf, 
for food to the spiders. It is so with the Jewish writings, 
for few concern themselves about them. But this leads 
to another question, 

5. Have your Jewish writings of antiquity been inter- 
polated and corrupted? This I believe is universally 
admitted. Dr. Kenecott, speaking of the Targums gen- 
erally, says — * it has been abundantly proved in many 
remarks before made, that the Chaldee paraphrases 
have been willfully altered.' And Basnage, speaking 
of Jonathan's Targum, says, p. 361 — ^ We cannot depend 
so much upon this performance, as upon that of Onke- 
los ; because the doctors who lived about seven hun- 
dred years after him, have not scrupled to add many 
things to it.' The other Jewish writings, Medrasch, ThiU 
Hum, Pierch, Eliezer, Beraschitli, Rabba, Masse, Thora^ 



48 

to which you refer, are also said to be corrupted, and 
are deemed by critics as of little authority. Would you 
deem them authority against Unitarianism ? Or, would 
you admit them authority in proof of Universalism 1 Who 
regards them as authority on any subject of importance ? 
Who can admit them as witnesses about the doctrine in 
question ? A corrupted witness, is not permitted to testi- 
fy in court, but is liable to punishment. Now, admit- 
ting all the Jewish writings you have quoted were in ex- 
istence in our Lord's day, they can be of no use to you, 
until you are able to prove, what is, and what is not, 
the corruptions introduced into them in later ages. But 
can you prove, that the quotations you have made from 
them, are none of these corruptions, but were positively 
a part of these writings in the days of the Saviour ? We 
very much doubt this. Nor can we conjecture, what 
process could be pursued to establish it. But, admitting 
the whole to be genuine, I must inquire, 

6. Are you warranted to interpret the New Testament 
by uninspired Jewish writings, and by quotations from 
them of which you are ashamed ? I must doubt this ; 
and I find others condemn such a mode of interpretation. 
Who can justify you in it? Basnage says, p. 173 : — 
' We must only remember one thing which the critics 
forget, which is, that the first book of the Tanaites * 
having not been composed till two hundred years after 
Christ, and the Talmud not completed till five or six 
hundred years after him ; we must not imagine that cer- 
tain expressions of our J^ord and his Apostles are bor- 
rowed from the Talmud, or that some Greek words ought 
to have such a signification, because the like is found 
among the Talmudists. Let them consult and study 
them, if they please, to discover the genius of the lan- 
guage : but let them not draw consequences from words 

* < Tanaites : that is, doctors. This word is borrowed from an- 
other, which signifies to teach. They are also called Misnaicks, 
because the work of the Mischna is ascribed to them. Some of 
them are also called ahha or father. There is cited, for instance, 
in the Mishna, one Abba Saul, who was of the stature of the 
giants, and who burying the dead, found Absalom ^s eye, in which 
he hid himself up to the nose' See Basnage, p. 163. What 
wonders in your Jewish writings. 



49 

they have implied so long after Jesus Christ, and in a 
corrupt age, to give scripture passages, novel, uncommon, 
and forced explications. One would think in reading 
some commentators, that Jesus Christ and his disciples 
had no other design than to make some perpetual allu- 
sions to the sentences or expressions of the Talmuds, 
which is ridiculous.* If this is ridiculous, it must be 
the essence of the ridiculous in you, to explain all the 
texts about gehenna by your Jewish writers, and say : — - 
^ I know of no other way of arriving at the true mean- 
ing of Hebrew words and phrases.' We have seen above, 
that Campbell, Jahn, Stuart, Home, and a prophet of 
your own, condemn the course you have pursued. But 
let us inquire, 

7. Is there any parallel case, to which we can refer 
for a decision on the question at issue ? Is there any 
other question which is disputed, and on which an ap- 
peal is made to the Jewish writings of antiquity ? We 
answer yes, and proselyte baptism is a case in point, 
which we shall take from an orthodox critic, no way 
biassed in favor of my views of gehenna. Professor 
Stuart, in his late work on * the Mode of Christian Bap- 
tism,' discusses the subject of ^Jewish proselyte baptism.' 
See pp. 54 — 71. He states the question thus — * Was 
baptism as an initiatory rite practised in the Jewish 
church, antecedent to the time ivhen christian baptism 
commenced ? ' It is seen at a glance, that this question 
is precisely the same with your assertion, p. 183, * That 
gehenna was uniformly used by the Jews in the time of 
our Saviour, and in succeeding ages to mean future pun- 
ishment J Both points rest on Jewish writings of anti- 
quity ; they must stand or fall together ; and Mr. Stuart 
and you appeal to the same, or similar writings. He 
appeals to them, to disprove the antiquity of proselyte 
baptism; and you appeal to them, to prove the antiquity 
of gehenna meaning future punishment. Mr. Stuart 
disproves both things by his remarks on this subject. In 
what way then does he discuss, and to what resuh. does he 
come respecting the antiquity of proselyte baptism 1 My 
limits will only permit me to notice in the briefest way, 
his topics of evidence, and the results of his investiga-^ 
tions. 

5 



50 

Mr. Stuart first examines the Old Testament, to see 
if proselyte baptism is taught there, pp. 54—59. His re- 
sult is : — * I cannot find a word to this purpose in the 
scriptures.' Well, examine the Old Testament, wheth- 
er gehenna there means ' future punishment,' and we 
arrive at the same result. Mr. Stuart says, respecting 
proselyte baptism : — ' Our present inquiry respects only 
the antiquity of the usage in question/ and denies, 
' such a custom existed among the Jews, antecedently to 
the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus.' I might 
repeat his remarks, for they equally apply to the question, 
Did gehenna mean future punishment antecedently to 
this period ? 

Mr. Stuart next proceeds to examine the Jewish writ- 
ings of antiquity respecting proselyte baptism. Let us 
see how he proceeds in this examination, and the result 
of it. The first reference to proselyte baptism he finds 
in the Mishna, * collected by Rabbi Judah Ilaggodesh 
about A. D. 220.' But this date is too late. Besides, 
Mr. Stuart remarks : — ' This work contains an almost 
infinite number of Jewish superstitions, usages, and rites.' 
He quotes the Jerusalem Talmud in proof of proselyte 
baptism, but adds : — * The Jerusalem Talmud, it will 
be remembered, was composed during the latter part of 
the third century, some fifty or sixty years, (the time is 
not exactly known,) after the Mishna was reduced to 
writing.' He concludes — 'It is probable, then, that 
the custom in a greater or less extent of baptizing pros- 
elytes"must have existed in the second century, and pos- 
sibly still earlier.' So might gehenna at that period 
mean future punishment, but the second century is not 
* in the days of the Saviour.' And if this period is too 
modern to prove the antiquity of proselyte baptism, it is 
also too modern to prove that gehenna was uniformly 
used in the days of the Saviour to mean future punish- 
ment. Mr. Stuart will not admit it evidence in the one 
case ; and why should I admit it evidence in the other ? 
The superstitions in the. books, too, are alike in both 
cases. 

Mr. Stuart goes on to say : — * We come now to later 
testimonies, and such as cannot be of any great weight 
in determining the question relative to the antiquity of 



51 

proselyte baptism.' He then quotes the Babylonish Tal- 
mud, but adds : — ' The Talmud of Babylon is a work 
of a late period, being a compilation made by the Baby- 
lonish Jews, during the fifth, sixth^ and seventh centuries.' 
He also refers to * other Rabbinical works, such as Be- 
reshith Rabba,' etc., and adds : — ^ I have not thought 
it of sufficient importance to transcribe the originals 
here; for the amount of all the testimonies from the Tal- 
mud, especially the Babylonish Talmud, and the other 
works of the Rabbins, can be but of small importance, 
in determining the question concerning the antiquity of 
proselyte baptism.' After referring to Tacitus, Epictetus, 
and Josephus, Mr. Stuart comes to the following result. 
* Thus much for Rabbinic and other external testimony, 
in regard to the antiquity of the baptismal rite among the 
Jews. Nothing from among the heathen writers or Jo- 
sephus, seems in any degree to confirm this antiquity. 
From the Rabinic writers all that we can gather is, that 
sometime in the latter part of the third century, when 
the Jerusalem Talmud was written, the custom of bap- 
tizing proselytes was common ; still more so did it be- 
come, during the times when the Babylonian Talmud was 
written, i. e. from the commencement of the fifth cen- 
tury onward, some two hundred or more years.' He 
adds : — * On the whole w^e must admit, that indepen- 
dently of the scriptures, we have evidence which ought to 
satisfy us that at the commencement of the third centu- 
ry, the custom of proselyte baptism was known and prac- 
tised among the Jews.' All this may also be said res- 
pecting gehenna ; for at this period, it meant future pun- 
ishment among the Jews. But to use the words of Mr. 
Stuart, such * works of the Rabbins, can be but of small 
importance, in determining the question concerning the 
antiquity *' of this sense of gehenna among the Jews." ' 
And I may add from him : — * Nothing from among the 
heathen writers, or Josephus, seems in any degree to 
confirm this antiquity.' Can you show, that Mr. Stuart 
is mistaken in all this ? But further ; 

Mr. Stuart justly remarks : — * There are so many nar- 
rations in the Talmud, which are gross mistakes and ri- 
diculous conceits, that one hardly feels himself safe in 
trusting to any of its statements respecting facts that hap- 



52 

pened long before the period when this book was written/ 
Mr. Whitman, how happens it that you feel yourself per- 
fectly safe, in trusting to the statements given in the 
Talmud about gehenna ? The statements you quote, 
are respecting the meaning of this word in the days of 
the Saviour, which was long before the period when this 
book was written. Your principal quototions are from 
the Talmuds : and concerning * the other works of the 
Rabbins' which you quote, Mr. Stuart says: — * They 
are of small importance.' Of as small importance, sir, 
in determining the question that gehenna meant future 
punishment in our Lord's day, as that proselyte baptism 
. was then practised among the Jews. But you seem to 
consider them of the greatest importance, in proving 
your sense of gehenna. 

But Mr. Stuart asks : — 'Is there any other source of 
evidence to which we can appeal ? What have Philo, 
and Josephus, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jona- 
than said or hinted, relative to the baptism of proselytes ? 
The answer to this question, so important to our present 
purpose, is, Nothing ; at least, nothing which serves at 
all to confirm the idea that the practice in ques- 
tion was extant, or at any rate notorious, at the time 
when these authors composed their works. All of them 
lived not far from the commencement of the Christian 
era ; Philo somewhat before ; Josephus somewhat after ; 
and Onkelos and Jonathan about the same periods. I 
know the age of these two Chaldee translators has been 
questioned, and set down to a period much later, by 
Eichhorn and some others : but it is more generally ad- 
mitted that they may be fairly ranked among writers who 
lived at, or very near the commencement of the Chris- 
tian era. In all these writers, so far as their works have 
yet been examined, there appears a deep and universal 
silence on the subject of baptizing proselytes ; a thing 
quite unaccountable, in case such baptism were usual 
at that period.' On this quotation, I remark, 

1. Philo and Josephus have said nothing relative to 
gehenna meaning future punishment. Just as little as 
on the subject of proselyte baptism. And if nothing is 
an important answer to Mr. Stuart on the last question^, 
it is of equal importance to me on the first. W© statedi 



above, and he admits it here, that Philo and Josephus 
* Jived not far from the commencement of the Christian 
era/ Mr. Whitman, here then are two writers, who liv- 
ed about the days of the Saviour, as all allow, yet are 
silent about gehenna meaning future punishment at that 
period. But, 

2. You will say — Mr. Stuart declares, ' Onkelos 
and Jonathan lived about the same periods,' and certain- 
ly Jonathan uses gehenna as meaning future punishment. 
I am aware of this, but must call your attention to the 
following circumstances, which go to prove that Jona- 
than's Targum did not exist in the days of the Saviour. 
If it did, how happened he to mention that gehenna then 
meant future punishment 1 Onkelos is silent about this, 
and yet his Targum is allowed to be older and better 
than all the other Targum's, Jonathan's not excepted. 
Besides, Philo, Josephus, and I may add some of the 
Apocryphal books, certainly were written about the days 
of the Saviour, yet none of them hint that gehenna then 
meant future punishment. And observe, sir, Mr. Stuart 
is candid enough to say : — 'I know the age of these 
two Chaldee translators, (Onkelos and Jonathan) has 
been questioned, and set down to a period much later, 
by Eichhorn and some others.' This being admitted, 
to say the least, the age of these writers is very doubtful, 
and is much disputed among critics. The very circum- 
stance of Jonathan mentioning gehenna as meaning fu- 
ture punishment, while Onkelos, Philo, and Josephus are 
silent about it, shows his Targum to be of a more modern 
date, or your quotations from it are the corruptions and 
additions made to it in later ages. To use the words of 
Mr. Stuart : — 'In all these writers, so far as their 
works have yet been examined, there appears a deep and 
universal silence on the subject of gehenna meaning fu- 
ture punishment ; a thing quite unaccountable, in case 
such a punishment was^ uniformly designated among the 
Jews in the days of the Saviour, by the term gehenna.' 
You assert, this was its uniform sense in the days of the 
Saviour, among the Jews. Philo, Josephus, and some 
of the Apocryphal writers, lived in the Saviour's day. 
They were Jews, they believed in future punishment, 
and yet they are all uniformly silent about gehenna. 
5* 



54 

In face of such evidence, must I believe your assertion t 
Must I shut ray eyes to all this certain evidence that it is 
false, and receive it on evidence which is very uncertain ? 
Had Jonathan's Targuni mentioned proselyte baptism, 
Mr. Stuart would have urged all the above things, and 
likely some others, that on thi« doubtful testimony no de- 
pendance could be placed. 

Mr. Stuart comes to the following conclusion. * In 
fine, we are destitute of any early testimony to the prac- 
tice of proselyte baptism, antecedently to the Christian 
era. The orio^inal institution of admitting Jews to the 
covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no oth- 
er rite than that of circumcision. No account of any 
other is found in the Old Testament, none in the 
Apocraphy, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, 
Jonathan, Joseph the blind, or in the work of any 
other Targumist excepting Psudo-Jonathan, whose 
work belongs to the 7th or 8th century. No evidence 
is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the earlier Chris- 
tian writers. How could an allusion to such a rite have 
escaped them all, if it were as common, and as much 
required by usage as circumcision.' I come to a similar 
conclusion, sir, respecting gehenna. To'^use the words 
of Mr. Stuart with a slight alteration, I say — * In fine 
we are destitute of any early testimony that gehenna 
meant future punishment antecedently to the Christian 
era. No account of this is found in the Old Testament; 
none in the Apocrypha ; none in the Targum of Onke- 
los ; none in the New Testament ; none in Philo or Jo- 
sephus, etc. How could the mention of such a punish- 
ment escape them all if what you say be true, p. 183, 
that * gehenna was uniformly used by the Jews in the 
time of our Saviour to mean future punishment ? ' May 
I not say with Mr. Stuart, ^ there is no certainty that 
such was the case, but that the probability, on the ground 
of evidence, is strong against it.' Mr. Stuart observes 
— 'I am aware that we cannot always argue from the 
silence of writers, against the existence of this or that 
practice ; but this would seem to be one of the cases, in 
which silence speaks strongly against the probability of 
the practice in question at that period. Now, sir, if 
silence speaks strongly against the probability that pros- 
elyte baptism was practised in the days of the Sa- 



55 

viour, silence speaks still more strongly against the procr^ 
ability, that gehenna meant future punishment in the 
(lays of the Saviour. Does the silence of the Old Testa- 
ment writings, the silence of Philo, Josephus, and others, 
not prove, that you are mistaken in saying gehenna was 
uniformly used in the days of the Saviour by the Jews to 
mean future punishment. 

I shall make one more quotation from Mr. Stuart. 
He says — * That we cannot point out the exact time when 
proselyte baptism began among the Jews, is little to the 
purpose of those who hold to its great antiquity ; for 
where are the monuments which show how and when a 
rite began, which came into general reception in the 
churches of Christ in the third, fourth, and fifth centu- 
ries.' That we cannot point out the exact time when 
gehenna began among the Jews to mean future punish- 
ment, is as little to the purpose of those who hold to its 
great antiquity. It behooves those who hold.to its great 
antiquity, to show, when it began, and to prove it 
had a divine origin. Unless ihey can do this, all are 
bound to reject it as an invention of men. But trace this 
sense of gehenna as far back as you can, no one can tell 
us when, where, or by whom such a sense was first given 
to gehenna. I have never found that any one risked his 
reputation in saying it had a divine origin. Mr. Whit- 
man, you do not assert it had, nor do you pretend to prove 
this sense of gehenna from the Bible. And you might 
with as much propriety call proselyte baptism, spiritual 
baptism^ as call gehenna punishment ^ spiritual punish- 
merit both in this life and the next existence^ But suppos- 
ing, ^ proselyte baptism^ and ^gehenna meaning future 
punishment,^ were both known among the Jews in the 
days of the Saviour, does this prove them scriptural 1 
No; for by the same logic it can be proved — the Jew- 
ish traditions are all scriptural. 

I cannot believe with some, that if the Jews in our 
Lord's day used gehenna to mean future punishment, it 
follows, our Lord used it in this sense. No ; Dr. Camp- 
bell says, ' Our Lord spoke to his countrymen in the dialect 
of their own Scriptures, and used those names to which 
the reading of the Law and the Prophets either in the 
original, or in the versions then used, had familiarized 
them. Our translators, and indeed most European trans- 



56 

lators, represent him as using words which even in theif 
own translation of the Old Testament never occur, and 
to which in fact, there is nothing there that corresponds 
in meaning.' Say, sir, is there anything in the Old 
Testament, which corresponds in meaning to the sense 
you give to gehenna in the New 1 Had the reading of 
the law and the prophets in the original, familiarized 
them to such a sense 1 Or, had even the reading of the 
law and the prophets in the versions then used familiar- 
ized them to it? What version, sir, deserving the 
name of a version, could contain such a sense of gehen- 
na 1 Will you risk your reputation in saying, that any 
Jewish writing you have quoted, deserves the name of a 
version of the Holy Scriptures ? Did our Lord ever 
stand up in a Jewish synagogue, and read as Scripture 
the silly nonsense given in your quotations ? If our Lord 
then spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their own 
Scriptures, he could not use gehenna to mean future 
punishment, for no such dialect was found in their Scrip- 
tures. This, all allow ; nor will any man assert, that 
our Lord v/as in the habit of laying aside the Old Testa- 
ment sense of words, and adopting a different sense giv- 
en to them in your Jewish writers. I really thought, 
sir, that Unitarians contended for the scriptural usage 
of words in interpreting the Bible. 

The following remarks of Mr. Stuart, well deserves 
your attention on the question before us. He says — 
* The Christian religion is built upon the Jewish. The 
Christian Scriptures are intimately connected with the 
Jewish sacred books, and they cannot be understood and 
explained, except by means of them. The words of the 
New Testament are Greek, but its idioms, its costume, 
its manner of thought and reasonings, its allusions, in 
short, the tout ensemble of it is Jewish ; nor can these 
ever be duly understood by any person who is ignorant 
of the Jewish nation, its laws, customs and history.' You 
have been laboring to convince us to the contrary ; that 
the Christian religion is built upon Jewish writers of an- 
tiquity. That the Christian Scriptures are intimately 
connected with these Jewish uninspired books, and they 
cannot be understood and explained, except by means of 
them. Have you not said, p. 183, * I know of no other 
way of arriving at the true meaning of Hebrew words 



57 

and phrases/ And p. 176, you said concerning gehen- 
na, ' all jadges of this subject will assure you there is no 
other certain way of arriving at its true meaning.' Is 
not this telling us * the words of the New Testament are 
Greek, but its idioms, its costume, its manner of thought 
and reasonings, its allusions, in short^ihe tout ensemble o{ 
it is Rahhinoc ; nor can these ever be duly understood by 
any person who is ignorant of the Jewish writings of an- 
tiquity, and the things contained in them. 

It would be easy to show by a variety of other consid- 
erations, that gehenna did not mean future punishment 
among the Jews in the days of the Saviour; and if it 
was so used then, he did not sanction such a use of this 
term. But enough has been said on this question, and 
my limits admonish me to proceed to another department 
of the subject. 

2. The nature of the punishment described in your 
quotations. The Jewish writers describe a hell, but the 
question is, do they describe yours 1 You said p. 165, 
^All valuable commentators affirm that Jesus employed ge- 
henna as an emblem of the spiritual punishment of the wick- 
ed^ both in this world and the next existence. This is 
the view I take of the subject, and the one which I shall 
attempt to defend.^ And this spiritual punishment, you 
told us, consists in ' the torment of inimical and revenge- 
ful feelings^ p. 167. But, sir, do your quotations from 
the Jewish writers, describe a spiritual hell 1 Do they 
affirm that Jesus employed gehenna in this sense ? It 
is obvious, not one of your Jewish writers mentions Je- 
sus in any way, or in what sense he used the word ge- 
henna. * And if they do not describe a spiritual heil in 
your quotations, you have quoted them in vain, and have 
given the Gentlemen at the University much unnecessa- 
ry" trouble. 

My object is now, to examine the nature of your quo- 
tations, whether they describe your spiritual hell : and if 
they do not describe it, to ascertain what kind of hell is 
taught in them. I shall, therefore, go over your quota- 
tions in a brief way, collecting the prominent features of 
the hell which they describe. In this way, we shall see 
whether it is the same as yours. The leading features 
ef the hell described in your quotatians are the following: 

1. Its origin, We are very plainly told^ that God creat- 



58 

ed gehenna. Just as plain, sir, as we are told Gen. i. 1, 
that ' God created the heavens and the earth/ The last 
we believe on the testimony of scripture ; but the first, 
we must receive on the testimony of your Jewish writers. 
But I ask, did God create your 'spiritual punishment?' 
Did he create your inimical and revengeful feelings?' 
This you will not affirm. 

2. Its antiquity. Few things can boast of higher 
antiquity, than the hell described in your quotations from 
the Jewish writers. It was created on * the second day 
of the creation.' It seems then, it was created before a 
single sinner existed ; before there were any ' inimical 
and revengeful feelings,' to constitute your hell, either 
in this or the next existence. 

3. Its location. The hell described in your quotations 
is a. place, and a place beneath, for persons descend into 
it. And, the descent is from the earth; for some saw 
^ them descending into the earth, to gehenna.' But do 
persons descend into the. earth, to get into your * spiritual 
punishment,' your * inimical and revengeful feelings?' 
Surely not. 

4. Its visibility. It seems ' Abram saw gehenna belch- 
ing forth smoke and burning coals, and sending up sparks 
to punish the wicked.' You say — ' Surely he did not 
see the valley of Hinnom, for this would make him wit- 
ness what no one pretends took place until a thousand 
years after his time.' So be it, sir ; but surely he did 
not see your ^ spiritual punishment,' your 'inimical and 
revengeful feelings?' And surely, until some person 
saw hell, or fancied he saw it, how could the valley of 
Hinnom be made an emblem of it? Gehenna, or the 
valley of Hinnom might, with some propriety be made 
an emblem of the hell described in your quotations, but 
1 cannot conjecture, how it could be made an emblem 
of your spiritual punishment. What resemblance has 
the valley of Hinnom to this kind of punishment? 

5. Its nature. The hell described in your quotations 
is evidently a raging fire. It * belches forth smoke and 
burning coals.' Its very ' snow is changed so as to be^ 
come like fire.' And we are told about, ' embers in the 

jire of gehenna.^ That it is material fire, is obvious, for 
^t is to operate ori the body as well as the soul. ' Go4 



59 

will redeem my soul from condemnation to gehenna, and 
he has delivered my body from condemnation to gehen- 
na.' And we shall see presently, persons are not only 
frightened but scorchedin gehenna. Is this your ' spirit- 
ual punishment 1 ' Is this your ' inimical and revenge- 
ful feelings V Your hell, sir, I should think had nothing 
material about it. Does it send *.up sparks to punish 
the wicked 1 ' 

6. Who are to suffer its torments ? They are in gen- 
eral the wicked ; particularly * heretics, traitors, apos- 
tates, epicureans,' etc. * All Angels and Seraphim shall 
not deliver the wicked from the condemnation of gehen- 
na.' Dr. Whitby on Rom. ii. declares the Jews consid- 
ered the Gentiles all wicked, and fit fuel for hell fire. 
And in your quotations, as well as his from the Jewish 
writers, hell is made very favorable , to the Jews. You 
tell us, * circumcision is regarded with favor : for the 
Holy and Blessed swear to Abram that no one who was 
circumcised should descend into gehenna.' Circumcision 
is a wonderful preservative from going to hell, for you say 
from your Jewish writers, Hereafter Abram will sit at 
the gates of gehenna, and will suffer no circumcised Is- 
raelite to descend thither ; but what will he do with those 
who have sinned beyond measure ? He will restore to them 
their foreskin, and they will descend^into gehenna.' But 
the case of such Jews, even in hell is not hopeless, for you 
tell us — ' The fire of gehenna does not prevail against 
the sinners of Israel so as to consume , them, but they 
are sent down into it to be frightened and scorched 
awhile on account of their evil deeds; afterwards Abra- 
ham, who kept all the commandments and went down 
into the fire of the Chaldeans to sanctify the name of 
God", descends thither and through his merits brings them 
forth from thence, that he may establish the promise of the 
covenant.' The Jews, sir, shaped their hell to suit them- 
selves. They did with their material hell, what you do 
with your * spiritual punishment,' modified it by their 
own religious opinions. The Saviour's gehenna punish- 
ment was chiefly threatened to his Apostles ; theirs for 
all the wicked Gentiles, and for very wicked Jews. 

In the Jewish hell there were literal torments by fire, 
and this torment commenced at death. According to 



60 

your quotations from the Jewish writers, persons ' be- 
came heirs of gehenna at their death.' And we have 
seen above, both soul and bodi/ went to gehenna. But 
your ' spiritual punishment ' must commence as soon as 
a person has * inimical and revengeful feelings,* and of 
course is suffered both in this world and the next exist- 
ence. The torments of the Jewish hell, began at death 
in your intermediate state for both soul and body. I» 
short, sir, how could material fire torment a spirit, that 
which is immaterial. Material fire required a material 
body to operate upon, and in this the Jews were consis- 
tent in contriving their hell torments. We now notice, 
7. Their duration. Are the torments of the Jewish 
hell livdited or endless ? They are both, if I mistake 
not, suited to the persons who descend into gehenna. 
You tell us in one part of the quotations — * The wicked 
are to be judged, that they may be delivered to eternal 
burning in gehenna.' The Jews considered all the Gen- 
tiles wicked, deemed them fit fuel for hell-fire ; and such 
was their hatred of them, that they made their punish- 
ment eternal. But if the punishment, of any Jews in 
hell was endless, it was only for such as were extremely 
wicked. ' Heretics, traitors, apostates, epicureans, those 
who deny the resurrection of the dead, those who sepa- 
rate themselves from the doctrines of the congregation, 
and those who cause terror among the dwellers upon earth, 
and those who have sinned, and caused many to sin, as 
Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and his companions ; these 
all descend into gehenna, and are punished therein ages 
of ages.' It is evident, that ' ages of ages/ * cannot 
mean endless, when applied to the punishment of Jews 
in gehenna, for we have seen ' the fire of gehenna does 
not prevail against the sinners of Israel.' No ; ' they 
are sent down into it to be frightened and scorched 
awhile, on account of their evil deeds,' but * through the 
merits of Abram they are to be brought forth from 

* Mr. Stuart, in his Exegetical Essays affirms, the phrase * ages 
of ages,' is ' an intensive expression, in order to designate with 
emphasis, the idea of a never-ending" period of time.' From its 
usage by the Jewish writers here, this seems to be a mistake, at 
least when this expression designates the duration of punishment 
to Jews. 



61 

thence. It is a very plain case here, that restoration 
from hell at least for the Jews, can be proved on the au- 
thority of Jewish writers. Yes, sir ; and as some say 
you are a believer in universal restoration from hell, you 
ought on their authority to correct your mistake ; for it 
does not appear any of the Gentiles are to be delivered 
from it. You know, your Jewish writers, are .just as 
good authority for this, as for your sense of gehenna. 
And if their authority is good, the safest course for us 
all, is to become Jews. The sooner we are all circum- 
cised, the better it will be for us. Being Gentiles, we 
are only fuel for the fire of gehenna. Your Jewish 
writers seem to prove the universal damnation of all Gen- 
tiles, which we should think is proving too much for your 
own comfort. 

8. I shall only add, your quotations prove an old and 
generally received opinion to be false. How often have 
we been told, that the ^ great gulf ^^ fixed between hell 
and heaven, is impassable. That there is an eternal non- 
intercourse between the two places. That no one in hell 
can pass to heaven ; nor can any one in heaven pass to 
hell. Now, sir, on the authority of your quotations from 
the Jewish writings of antiquity, this is a gross mistake. 
We have already seen that all Jews who go to hell, go 
there only to be ' scorched awhile, on account of their 
evil deeds.' But afterwards, through the merits of 
Abram, they can get over this * great gulf,' and dwell 
with their brethren, the Jews in paradise. Here the 
gulf is got over from the one side : let us then hear you, 
whether it cannot be passed also from the other ? You 
say, in your quotations, 'God admitted Hiram king of 
Tyre into paradise, because he had built the temple, 
and had been from the first a pious man ; and he lived 
in paradise a thousand years ; but when afterwards he 
began to be filled with pride, and made himself a deity, 
he was expelled from paradise and descended into gehen- 
na.' It is evident, then, from your Jewish writings, that 
this ^ great gulf,' is passable by persons from both sides 
of it. Father Abraham must have been mistaken, then, 
when he said to the rich man in hell, * And besides all 
this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so 
that they which would pass from hence to you cannot ; 
6 



62 

neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence/ 
In short, sir, unless this '^rcaf^w/f' is passable, how can 
the doctrine of restoration from hell ever be established ? 
Your Jewish writers of antiquity say it has been passed, 
and they are just as good authority for this, as for the 
question at issue between us. You must either take the 
whole of the Jewish hell as they have made it, or reject 
the whole. You have no right to claim the Jewish wri- 
ters as authority, to prove one thing about it, and reject 
them in others. With what face can j^ou prefer such a 
claim 1 

Such are the leading features of the gehenna, or hell, 
described in your quotations from the Jewish writers. 
He must be a man of super-human discernment, who 
can find a single feature of your * spiritual punishment ' 
in them. The Targum and Talmud hell has no kind 
of resemblance to yours. Was it not, then, a very strange 
mistake in you, to quote these vVritings in proof of your 
spiritual hell, when it is as clear as noon-day, their hel! 
was a material raging fire ? Your Jewish writers would 
have deemed it a gross misrepresentation of their views 
of gehenna, to call it * spiritual punishment, the torment 
of inimical and revengeful feelings.' And would not 
you say, that I misrepresented your views of gehenna, if 
I stated you believed ia a material hell of fire ? Yes, 
as much as you do mine, when you say, that T believe 
gehenna means ' being burnt in the valley of Hinnom.' 

But taking your hell, and the hell described in the 
Jewish writings as given by yourself, I have now a few 
questions to ask about both. I shall begin, 

1. With the Rev. Bernard Whitman's hell. It is not 
sheol, hades, tartarus, or gehenna, as described in the 
Bible. Nor, is it any of these as altered by Pagans, 
Jews, Mahomedans, or most Christians, to suit themselves. 
No ; it is a new hell of modern invention, which is little 
known in the community, except perhaps among Unita- 
rians. Indeed, I am not sure, if it is even generally 
adopted among them. If I understand you correctly, 
your hell has no location or materiality whatever. This 
is a very different hell, sir, from Calvin's, in the belief of 
which I was brought up, and for years preached to others. 
It is not the hell in which many orthodox people believe 



63 

at the present day. The good old orthodox hell, has a 
strong resemblance to the one described in your quota- 
tions; your's has no resemblance to either of them. Permit 
me then to ask, who made* your hell ? On what divine 
*<iuthority am I to believe in it ? I cannot even believe in it 
on the authority of your Jewish writers, for this is not the 
hell which they describe. And surely you cannot suppose 
me silly enough, to believe in your hell on your bare as- 
sertion about it. Had you advocated the old orthodox 
hell, your quotations would have been somewhat to the 
purpose. Bat you have missed it entirely, to advocate a 
spiritual hell, thinking to prove it from the Jewish writ- 
ers of antiquity. How could you commit such a great 
blunder ? 

Some ten or twelve years ago, after a serious examina- 
tion of the Scriptures, I was constrained by evidence to 
abandon the old Calvinistic hell, as without foundation 
in the Bible. Since that period, I have been somewhat 
careful to avoid believing in any hell of man's making. 
I should feel like a fool, to have abandoned the old hell 
of my fathers, and now receive your spiritual hell with- 
out scripture authoritj^^^Until scripture authority is pro- 
duced, do not blame .„ ,i,^. rejecting it, for I reject all 
hells made by men, without any exception. I shall as 
soon believe in the Pagan hell, the Jewish hell, the Cal- 
vinistic hell, Dante's hell, any one of the Chinese hells, 
or any other hell, as in your's, until it is proved from the 
Bible. I will believe in any hell taught there, but in no 
other. If I believe in a hell of man's invention, I shall 
invent one of my own. I have as good a right as any 
of my neighbors to make my own hell, and make it to 
suit my own taste, and when my hell is made, I have the 
sn.me right B,s others to cM It geJicnna, and quote the Jew- 
ish writers to prove it. It must be a nondescript in the 
history of hells, if the Targums and Talmuds do not 
prove it, just as much as your's. 

I am aware the old Calvinistic hell, which is so like the 
Targum hell, has of late years been falling into disre- 
pute. It is much too heathenish for modern refined no- 
tions. But I am unable to say, what kind of hell is 
generally substituted in its place. Professor Stuart in 
his Exegetical Essays, seemed to have abandoned the old 
grihoioK hell ; but what one he had adopted, did not ap- 



64 

pear distinctly from his book. Your own opinions on 
this subject, seem not as yet very fixed or definite. Like 
the Professor, you have abandoned the old hell; you 
have got a new one ; you call it by the old name ge- 
henna ; you are at a loss how to describe it ; and have* 
not yet learned t9 prove it from the Bible. But I 
must ask — Is it correct in you to abandon the hell 
of your fathers; invent a new one; call it by the old 
name ; quote the Jewish writings which prove no 
such hell ; and pass this off to your readers without 
proof from scripture? Do not misunderstand me^sir;^ 
We have had many hell makers since the world began, 
and I allow, you have the same right as others to engage 
in this business. What I object to is — you have no 
right to palm your new hell on the public under the old 
name gehenna, and quoting the very same proofs for your 
spiritual hell, which for ages have been quoted to prove 
the old material hell of fire. It is true, in the course of 
your letter, you change your spiritual hell into future 
punishment, but give no intimation you have changed 
it from spiritual to material. Be this as it may, one 
thing is certain, if your quot^ti^ns p^ove a future punish- 
ment, they also prove it is nteehngsin its nature; who 
are to suffer it ; and that the Jews are to be delivered 
from it, etc. 

I hope you have altered your ^ spiritual punishment,' 
into something different from * inimical and revengeful 
feelings.' If you have not, it will involve you in some 
difficulty. If this is your hell, you must admit all with- 
out exception are sometimes in it, even in this world. 
Few, if any pass through life, without occasionally hav-. 
ing * inimical and revengeful feelings.' And sometimes 
clergymen, are in this hell in the sacred desk ; for there 
we have seen them indulge these very feelings against 
their Christian brethren of a different sect. And we 
suspect, all must go into your hell in another world, fo? 
few die without some such passions in their natures. 
And I doubt, if we must not extend the torments of your 
hell to the brute creation ; for we have seen in some of 
them, something very like * inimical and revengeful feel- 
ings.' But I hope, if you write again on this subject,, 
you will more minutely describe your hel!^ to avoid all 



65 

misunderstanding about it. But I have a few questions 
to ask about, 

2. The Tar gum and Talmud hell. It is manifest, 
from your quotations, that this is a place ^ and a place of 
literal torment by Jire. I must then ask — Where was 
this knowledge obtained 1 From what bible, book, god, 
or man, did your Jewish writers learn all their precious 
information 1 They tell us, God created hell on the sec- 
ond day of the creation. But I can find no such infor- 
mation in Gen. i. 6 — 9, or in any other part of scripture. 
They also tell us, Abram saw their gehenna or hell. But 
can you point out in what part of his history I can find 
such information ? And, as their descriptions of gehen- 
na or hell are comments on certain texts of scripture. 
Can you inform us how such information can be dug out 
of them ? You do not pretend, you could find such in- 
formation in the Old Testament ; and the Jewish writers 
did not derive it from the New ; for you tell us they de- 
tested this book. It was not derived from the New Tes- 
tament ; for you say", p. 183 : — ' Gehenna was uniformly 
used by the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, and in suc- 
ceeding ages, to mean future punishment.' As the Jew- 
ish writers must have derived their information from some 
other source, and as you do not specify any divine source, 
from which it was received, I must press you with the 
question. From whence did they derive all this informa- 
tion about their gehenna, or hell 1 I know, you and the 
gentlemen at Cambridge, derived your quotations from 
the Jewish writers. What I demand of you is — To 
tell us, from what source the Jewish writers obtained 
their information ? And, if you assert that it was deriv- 
ed from God, why are you ashamed of it ? Why do you 
say — * I have nothing to do with their theology or reli- 
gious sentiments' on this subject. Are you ashamed of 
anything which has come from God ? Does it require 
the apology of Mr. Whitman, a Unitarian minister at 
Waltham ? If you believe it did not come from God, 
why impose on your readers such Jewish traditions 1 

You have read Homer, Virgil, and other heathen au- 
thors. Permit me then to ask. Is not the Targum and 
Talmud hell, very like the hell described by the heathen 
authors ! And does not the old orthodox hell, bear a 
6* 



66 

strong resemblance to both ? Are they not all so much 
alike, that I cannot be far wrong in concluding, thej had 
one common origin 1 I admit there is some difference be- 
tween the heathen and Targum hell. But the difference 
is easily accounted for, from Jewish opinions and their 
national prejudices. And the difference between the 
heathen and Targum hell, and the old orthodox hell, is 
also accounted for, from their peculiar views and circum- 
stances. That the one hell is copied from the other, 
with certain modifications and amendments, seems pret- 
ty obvious. The question is, which was the original hell 
from which the others were copied ? You seem to de- 
termine this question yourself On p. 184, you plainly 
intimate, no such hell is taught in the Old Testament. 
Professor Stuart advocated no such hell from it. But it 
is well known, while no such hell was taught by the in- 
spired writers, this hell was perfectly familiar among the 
heathen. Of course, the Jews adopted the heathen hell,, 
and this is confirmed by Dr. Campbell and other writers. 
They inform us, the Jews derived many of their opin- 
ions from the heathen, and particularly on the subject of 
a future state. And it is easily perceived, that whea 
Jews and heathens embraced Christianity, such opinions 
were introduced into the Christian church, and modified 
to suit the times and views of the people. 

Should it be asked, where did the heathen obtain their 
information about their hell, from which Jews and Christ- 
ians have copied theirs 1 I answer, we find it in their 
fables ; and as I have traced it to a heathen source, if 
you say it came from God, you must prove its origin di- 
vine. But I may answer this question, by asking anoth- 
er, —From what source did the heathens derive their no- 
tions about idolatry, demons, transmigrations, and a va- 
riety of other things ? The answer is, — From the inven- 
tions of men. Professing themselves to be wise, they 
became fools. And as after ages of men deemed them- 
selves wiser than those who preceded them, they have al- 
tered and modified the rude hell of the heathen, to suit 
their own taste and the times they lived in. The heathen 
hell was too gross for the Jews ; and the Jewish writers 
you quote, shaped it to suit their own nation. But their 
hell, and the orthodox hell, are both too gross for you, 
hence you have so modified them as to reduce them to * a 



67 

spiritual hell/ consisting in ^inimical and revengeful 
feelings.'' And whether we have now got to the end of 
naodern modifications and improvements of hell, I do not 
pretend to say. It is certain, half a century has vastly 
improved this article, in reducing it from a material, rag- 
ing fire of coals and brimstone, to a thing purely spirit- 
ual, without materiality or location^ etc. 

But I must do justice to your Jewish writers, and com^ 
mend their honesty. When they copied the heathen hell^ 
with their own alterations and modifications of it, they 
did not call it by the heathen name Tartarus, but gave 
it the new name gelienna. But, when you wholly change 
the Targum material hell, into a spiritual hell, you still 
call it by the old name, and quote the Jewish writings in 
proof of it. You retain the name of their hell, but seem 
to be ashamed of their descriptions of it. But, this is 
very inconsistent in a Unitarian. Have not Unitarians 
blamed our orthodox brethren, for altering and modify- 
ing Calvinism into a very different system, yet calling it 
by the old name Calvinism ? Ought not you, either to 
call your new spiritual hell by some other name than ge-- 
henna, or, cease from censuring them 1 Are Unitarians 
the only sect in the land, who have the right to call new 
things in religion by old names 1 For one, I must ob* 
ject to your manufacturing a spiritual hell, adapted to 
modern refined notions, and baptizing it with the name 
gehenna; for it bears no resemblance to any of its pre- 
tended ancestors. If you are ashamed of the pagan hell, 
the Jewish hell, or the orthodox hell, do not attempt to 
impose on Universalists by adopting the names of them, 
I have called yours ' a spiritual hell,^ as expressive of its 
nature, but iflhis name does not please you, give it 
some other which sufficiently distinguishes it from all the 
hells of other sects or religions. The Jewish hell and 
yours are essentially diflferent, and ought not to be called 
by the same name. I may add ; — if your hell consists in 
' inimical and revengeful feelings,' it would be to some a 
heaven, for they seem to delight in such feelings. They 
find ' revenge is sweet : * and, like Milton's devil, would 
rather * rule in hell than serve in heaven.^ Indeed, if hell 
is inimical and revengeful feelings, most people would 
look on it as a very trifling affair. And some would say, 
what a fuss the clergy for ages have been making about 



68 

nothing. At any rate, sir, they have made a mighty 
fuss about a very different hell from your's. Whether 
your's will produce similar effects as their's, remains to be 
proved. It has not been long enough in use to make a 
fair experiment. 

Such are your quotations, and the remarks we have 
deemed proper to make on them. Let us now hear what 
you have to say about them yourself. After giving us 
the quotations, the very first sentence you utter is this. 
'^ You learn from these various quotations, that gehenna 
was used by the Jews at and after the times of our Sa- 
viour to mean future punishment for the wicked.' But 
have you forgotton, sir, your own statements, pp, 165, 
172, that these quotations were to prove, — * That our 
Saviour used gehenna to mean the spiritual punishment 
of the wicked, both in this life and the world to come ? ' 
Did you not say * this is the view I take of the subject 
and the one which I shall attempt to defend?' But 
now you seem inclined to drop your * spiritual punish* 
ment^ and all we are to learn from ' these various quota- 
tions ' is, 'future punishmeut for the wicked,^ leaving its 
spirituality and everything else out of the question. 
But if we learn anything from these quotations, we cer- 
tainly learn that the punishment is material, and by fire ; 
and if you prove by them a future punishment, you must 
just take the one they describe. But such is the way you 
modify your own system, so as to make it more conform- 
able to your quotations. And, of course, Christ must 
alter his sense of gehenna to suit it. Hence you add 
' — ■* That he used gehenna in the same sense there can 
be no doubt in the minds of sound critics.' Thus, Jesus 
Christ and sound critics, shift their sens« of gehenna to 
suit Mr. Whitman's convenience. 

But you say — * The only objection you will be likely 
to make to this conclusion may be thus stated. You 
may ask if there is any degree of probability that our 
Lord and his Apostles knew anything about the Tar- 
gums 1 ' A pretty weighty objection, sir, but not the 
only one I could make. I shall, however, make no other, 
but shall watch carefully how you remove it. You say 
— * I have already furnished you some evidence on this 
question; and I may remark that those scholars who 



69 

have given this subject a thorough investigation, have a 
firm belief that some of these Hebrew writings were theh 
in existence.' What kind of evidence you have already 
given, we have seen. Here you assert, some of those 
Hebrew writings were in existence in * the time of our 
Saviour,' but which of them you do not specify. And it 
seems, your faith in this rests on some scholars, who 
have ' a firm belief in it. No doubt the Cambridge 
scholars gave you the evidence which produced their 
firm belief a.houi this. But why should it convince me^ 
for it is not satisfactory to yourself? No; for you add 
— * I will present one or two considerations which seem 
satisfactory to my mind.' A frank confession, that all 
their evidence, and all you have hitherto adduced, is not 
very satisfactory to yourself. Well, I hope we are now 
coming to some evidence, which will be satisfactory^ 
' that our Lord and his apostles knew about the Targums.' 
What then are these considerations ? 

You say, ' In the first place it appears the Jews had 
lost their national language, the Hebrew, after the retnrii' 
from the captivirty, since you find Ezra was obliged to 
employ interpreters while he read the law to the people.' 
And after stating, this gave rise to translations of the 
Scriptures and comments upon them, you ask — ' What 
more natural than that such translations should be made 
for the benefit both of the synagogue and of private fam- 
ilies, and that they should be generally used 1 ' All 
this, sir, is perfectly natural and proper. But why fdo 
you forget, that your quotations above, are not from anj 
translation of the Scriptures, but are comments on the 
texts. They are silly stories and glosses^ which have no 
foundation in the text, and of which you yourself are 
ashamed. Besides, all this is no proof our Lord and his- 
Apostles knew about the Targums. Nor, had they ex- 
isted in their day, they would have approved of that of 
which you are ashamed. If they knew about the 
Targums, it is strange they never stumbled on any of 
your precious quotations. A strange omission this, if 
they believed what is contained in them. 

You say — * But in the second place, we have positive 
evidence that there were translations of the Scriptures 
in common use among the Jews in our Saviour's time.* 



70 

True ; for we are certain the septuagint version then ex- 
isted. But if a thousand translations were then in com- 
mon use among the Jews, it could not serve your cause ; 
for no decent translation of the scriptures could contain 
your sense of gehenna, or the silly things contained in 
your quotations. To produce ^positive evidence,^ that 
translations existed in our Lord's day, is nothing to the 
purpose. Nor will it answer, if you could produce 'pos- 
itive evidence,' that Targums then existed. No ; what 
you have got to do is this — You must produce positive 
evidence \\\^i some Targums existed in our Lord's day, 
which contained your quotations, and that he approved 
of the sense of gehenna given in them. But, sir, it is 
idle in you to pretend, that any positive evidence can be 
produced, that a single Targum existed in our Lord's 
day. And how can you ever prove, that our Lord or any 
of his Apostles, approved of the sense given to gehenna in 
jour quotations ? Onkelos' Targum, is allowed to be the 
oldest and best of all the Targums in existence ; but you 
Well kaow it is of no use to you, hence you say nothing 
about it. But I must ask, had such nonsense, as is con- 
tained in your quotations, been foisted into any transla- 
tion in our Lord's day, do you think he would have quot- 
ed it with approbation % I suspect not, sir ; the Tar- 
gums and Talmuds would not have been such favorite 
authors with the Saviour then, as they are with you on 
the present question. 

You proceed thus. ' In addition to the books of the 
Old Testament, the Jews had a collection, oral, of laws 
or traditions, as they were called, which had been hand- 
ed down for many ages, from father to son, until finally, 
about one hundred and ninety years after the time of 
Christ they were committed to writing, and received the 
name o'i Mischna, under which name they have come 
down to us.' Yes, sir ; but you seem to conceal, for I 
cannot suppose you forget it, that our Lord condemned 
the whole mass of Jewish traditions, whether oral or 
WTitten. See Matth. xv. 1 — 10. Mark vii. 1 — 24. 
But let us see what use you make of the Mischna on the 
question before us. You say, * Now, on turning to the 
Mischna, we find it plainly intimated that there were 
translations, or Targums of the Scriptures in common use 



71 

among the Jews, at least as early as the time when the 
Mischna was composed, (Targum is a Chaldee word, 
meaning translation,) and that is even before the time 
of Christ, since Christ himself often speaks of the tradi- 
tions of the Jews, and it is of these traditions, as has 
been remarked, that the Mischna is made up.' On these 
statements I must remark, 

1. Your explanation given in the parenthesis needs an 
explanation. The word targum means comment, as well 
as translation. Onkelos' Targum may be called a transla- 
tion; but, ihe Targums you have quoted, do not deserve 
this name. Your quotations are comments, the silly sto- 
ries and glosses of some persons on the sacred text. You 
will not risk your reputation in asserting, that they are 
translations of the original scriptures, or have any foun- 
dation in the Old Testament. What madman's brains 
then invented them ? 

2. You intimate, that ^ the mischna was composed be- 
fore the time of Christ' If this be true, it was composed 
^one hundred and ninety years' before it was written. 
This is a distinction between composing and writing which 
is new to me. But let it be composed or written at what 
period you please, it cannot help your cause, for Christ 
condemned the whole mass of Jewish traditions. Nor, 
could it aid your cause, if the 3IiscJina mentioned a thou- 
sand translations or Targums then in use among the Jews. 
No, sir ; to serve your purpose, the Mischna must not only 
mention some Targums which contain your quotations, 
but prove that snch Targums existed in the days of the 
Saviour, which was one hundred and ninety years before 
the writing of the Mischna. Even all this would not be 
sufficient, sir, until it is proved, that our Lord approved 
of the mess of nonsense contained in your quotations. 
Does the Mischna prove this ? No, this never can be 
proved. 

It is amusing, to see you break off in the midst of a 
paragraph, to repeat your old caution to your readers, 
thus : ' You will keep in mind that I never refer to these 
traditions for proof of a religious doctrine, but simply to 
ascertain the use of a Hebrew word at that period.' The 
period you refer to is, * the time of Christ.' But you re- 
fer to all these Jewish writings in vain, for none of them 
existed in * the time of Christ.' I shall, however, keep 



72 

your caution in mind, and allow you to speak for yourself, 
how you attempt to ascertain this. You say — ' It is one 
of these traditions, as laid down in the Mischna, that " all 
sacred books ought to be preserved from fire, whether 
they are read or not : and whatsoever language they are 
writ m, they ought to be laid up carefully.^'' But what 
does this ascertain 1 You say — * This plainly implies 
that the Jews had their sacred books* in more languages 
than one, in at least one other language besides the He- 
brew. But no one pretends, that at this time there were 
any translations of the Hebrew scriptures in existence 
besides the Greek and Chaldaic' But still, this ascer- 
tains nothing to your purpose, by your own statements. 
We are certain the septuagint version existed in our 
Lord's day. Here then, was * at least one other lan- 
guage besides the Hebrew,' and answers to all which you 
say is implied in your quotation from the Mischna. By 
your own showing, then, there was no need for any other 
translations; for this with the Hebrew, were sacredhooks 
to be preserved from fire, and laid up carefully. But let 
us see what you say about the Greek, and also a Chal^ 
daic version, which you say then existed. 

1. 2Vie Greek version. You say — * It was used by 
those Jews, who lived in foreign countries, and by them 
the traditions were never received nor acknowledged to 
be of any sort of authority.' This, sir, is a precious 
confession, and is much to the honor of the foreign Jews, 
for they agreed with Christ and his apostles in rejecting 
the Jewish traditions. This is also confessing that they 
rejected your quotations from the Targums and Talmuds. 
You do not pretend such things are to be found in the 
Bible, and it is of no consequence whether they are Pa- 
gan, Jewish, or Christian traditions. Had all Jews, like 
the foreign Jews, strictly adhered to the Scriptures, 
whether in the original Hebrew or Greek version, sucli 

* Mr. Whitman, if the Targums and Talmuds, or any other 
Jewish writings, except the Scriptures are sacred books, why are 
not your's and mine sacred books, also ? They have as good a 
title to this name as any Jewish writings you have quoted. But 
when w^e speak o? sacred hooks ^ we confine this name to the sa- 
cred Scriptures. And until further evidence is produced, I must 
believe the Jews only gave this name to the books of the Old Tes- 
tament. 



73 

traditions could not have existed. You would have had 
no Targums or Talmuds to quote from. But one of two 
things is certain : either the foreign Jews did wrong, in 
rejecting the traditions as of no sort of authority, or you 
do wrong, in making them authority, in determining the 
true sense of gehenna. I leave you to say which of 
these is the truth. 

I remember that you say, I refer only to these tradi- 
tions — * simply to ascertain the use of a Hebrevx word 
at that period.' But you seem to forget, tliat none of 
your Jewish writings containing these traditions, exist- 
ed in our Lord's day ; and at whatever period they did 
exist, if you adopt their sense of gehenna, you must take 
also the theology they connected with it. In fact, sir, 
they cannot be separated ; for the very sense they attach- 
ed to gehenna, is a part of these traditions. Neither 
can be found in the Bible. Had it contained them, this 
w^ould have saved a great deal of labor to certain gentle- 
men at the University. Could the foreign Jews learn 
from, the Septuagint, or those in Judea from the He- 
brew scriptures, that gehenna ' meant future punishment 
for the wicked ? ' Say, sir, could they learn that it meant 
* spiritual punishment both in this life and the world to 
come 1 ' You must answer in the negative. I ask again. 
Did the foreign Jews reject the traditions, but like you 
advocated the sense given to gehenna in the Targums 
and Talmnds? No, the honor was reserved for Mr. 
Whitman, of Waltham, to separate the sense given to ge- 
henna by the Jewish writers, from the doctrines they 
connected with it. But I demand of you to tell us, where 
the Jewish writers got their sense of gehenna and the 
doctrines connected with it, as neither are to be found in 
the Hebrew scriptures or Greek version ? You admit, 
this was not learned * from the Christian scriptures, a 
book which the Jews utterly detested,' p. 174. And 
you maintain, gehenna * was uniformly used by the Jews 
in the time of our Saviour, and in succeeding ages to 
mean future punishment.' p. 183. Let us have no eva- 
sion here, sir ; you must either point out that their sense 
of gehenna originated from God, or inform us, at what 
point we are to stop in believing your Jewish traditions. 

But it is very certain, some of the Jews in Judea re- 
7 



74 

jected the traditions as well as the foreign Jews. The 
sect of the Sadducees did so. Nor did Christ or his 
apostles blame them for this, for they also rejected the 
traditions. Christ told the Sadducees, they erred, not 
knowing the Scriptures ; but where did he ever say to 
a single individual, — he erred, not knowing the Targums 
and Talmuds ? Surely you will not say, that your quo- 
tations from the Jewish writers, were scripture ia those 
days ? It was the sect of the Pharisees who chiefly ven- 
erated* the traditions. But did Jesus ever commend 
them for this ? No; and yet you cannot support your 
views of gehenna without them. 

By saying — 'the Septuagint was used by those Jews 
who lived in foreign countries/ you intimatej that it was 
not much used in Judea. But it was once the common 
opinion that Christ and his apostles always quoted the 
Septuagint. Dr. Kennicott says, — * That the writers 
of the New Testament did not make it a constant rule 
to quote from the Greek version, is certain ; as appears 
from the many places, where their quotations differ from 
that version^ and agree with the Hebrew. And as the 
quotations now agree with the Hebrew, frequently in 
the express words, generally in the sense ; so it is most 
probable, that they universally agreed at first ^ and that 
where the Hebrew was expressed properly in the Greek 
version, they used the words of that version ; and where 
that version was not proper, they translated for them- 
selves' The New Testament writers, sir, appear to have 
been very careful what they quoted for Scripture. Now, 
if they did not quote the Greek version where it differed 
from the Hebrew, but translated for themselves, can any 
man believe that they would have quoted or sanctioned 
any of your quotations from the Targums or Talmuds, 
supposing they then existed 1 My credulity is not a 
match for this, if all the world had a firm belief in it. 

2. The Chaldaic version » You do not positively assert, 
but very plainly intimate, that a Chaldaic version of the 
Scriptures was in use among the Jews in our Lord^s day, 
as well as the Septuagint. But all you say about this, is 

* It is evident, then, that in the passage which has been 

referred to, (in the Mischna,) the Chaldaic Targums 
must be meant. I can see no room for further doubt on 



75 

this subject.' In this brief way, you wrap the matter up 
about the Chaidaic Targums, although they principally 
claimed your attention. But you must not slip out 
of my hands in this way. Be pleased then to notice. 1. 
You seem to consider all Targums translations of the 
Scriptures. But who will risk his character in asserting, 
that your quotations deserve the name of translations ? 

2. You deem the Targums sacred books. Perhaps 
they, and other books mentioned above, might be con- 
sidered sacred by the Jews. But is it any proof of their 
sacredness, that the Jews deemed them so? Or, does it 
prove their sacredness, that the Mishna contains a tradi- 
tion — 'That all sacred books ought to be preserved 
from fire, whether they are read or not ; and whatsoever 
language they are writ ztz, they ought to be laid up care- 
fully.' Say, sir, does this prove that they w^ere deemed 
sacred by God, Christ, or his apostles 1 If the quota- 
tions you have made from the Jewish writers, are from 
sacred books, what you have quoted ought to be call- 
ed sacred nonsense, for you are ashamed of it yourself. 
But, 

3. The quotation you have made from the Mischna, 
although it mentions sacred books, does not mention 
Chaidaic books of any kind whatever. The question 
you are bound to prove is this, that some of the sacred 
books referred to in the Mischna, were the Jewish writ- 
ings you have quoted, and that these writings were 
known to Christ and his apostles, and approved by them. 
But not a scrap of evidence have you produced of this. 
No, sir, you leap to this conclusion, by assuming that, 
because the Mischna mentions sacred books — * The 
Chaidaic Targums must be meant.' But let it be sup- 
posed they are meant — what then ? This is not proving 
that these Chaidaic Targums existed in the days of the 
Saviour, or, that he would have approved of what you 
quoted from them, and noticed above. 

4. If you must have a Chaidaic Targum referred to in 
the Mishna, why not give Onkelos' Targum the prefer- 
ence ? It is on all hands allowed to be the oldest and best 
of all the Targums. It is a translation, but the Targums 
you quote are not. It may be called a sacred book, but 
your Targums and Talmuds have no claim to the appel- 



76 

lation. But, had the Mishna expressly mentioned On- 
kelos' Targum as one of the sacred books, it would not 
have answered your purpose, for it contains no silly sto- 
ries and glosses about gehenna. Prideaux declares, — 
* The Targum of Onkeios is rather a version than a par- 
aphrase ; for it renders the Hebrew text, word for word, 
and for the most part accurately and exactly ; and it 
is much the best of all this sort ; and therefore it hath 
always been had in esteem among the Jews much above 
all the other Targums/ Such a Targum as this, would 
be of no more use to you, than our English version of 
the Old Testament. On the subject of gehenna, the ' 
Targums which contain stories and glosses and enlarge'- 
merits to the sacred text, are your lively oracles. 

But according to Jahn, Onkeios' Targum could not 
be mentioned in the Mischna, if it was written as early 
as you assert. He says — * The Chaldee paraphrases are 
known by the name of Targums (which means aversion 
or an interpretation.) The most celebrated among them 
is that of the Pentateuch, ascribed to Onkeios, whom 
the Babylonian Talmud makes cotemporary with Ga- 
maliel, adding many incoherent tales respecting him. 
It is evident, however, that he lived several centuries be- 
fore, the Talmudical writers, since they knew so littlefof 
him, although he wrote in Babylonia. Onkeios, there- 
fore would seem to have written, not in the fourth or fifth 
century of the Christian era, but in the third, or rather 
in the second, and this is confirmed by his paraphrase 
itself.* And we have seen, Onkeios* Targum is not on- 
ly * the first in order of place as being on the Pentateuch^ 
but the first also in order of time, and the ancientest that 
was written of all that are now extant.' If these state-^ 
ments of the critics are correct, sir, it settles the question 
forever, that no Targum existed in the days of Christ 
and his apostles. 

I am aware that you have mentioned, the Targums 
now extant are partly made up from older Targums not 
now in existence. But, supposing this to be true, it af-* 
fords your cause no assistance. You must still prove 
these older Targums existed in Christ's day, contained 
your quotations, and that he sanctioned them as giving 
the correct sense of gehenna. But thi^^ never can te 



done. You cannot prove, that Targums so old ever ex- 
isted. Nor can it ever be shown, that your quotations 
are not the corruptions and additions of later ages. Who 
can believe, sir, that our Lord and his apostles would 
approve of the childish nonsense you have quoted from 
your Jewish writers ? I am surprised at your reasoning, 
your conclusions, and the premises from which you draw 
them. 

You add — * Here then you have one good reason for 
my definition of the word gehenna.' What is this 
* grand reason 7 ' You answer — * It was uniformly used 
by the Jews in the time of our Saviour, and in succeed- 
ing ages, to mean future punishment.' But this is no 
reason, but a mere assertion. The first part of it is ut- 
terly false. You have given us no proof, that gehenna 
' was uniformly used by the Jews in the time of our Sa- 
viour to mean future punishment.' And as to the last, 
that it was so used in ' succeeding ages,' no one disputes. 
You have produced no proof, that the Targums were 
known to Christ and his apostles, and that they used 
gehenna in the sense given to it in your Jewish writings. 
In vain, sir, do you labor to show, that the Scripture 
sense of gehenna and the Targum sense of it are the 
same. You quote the Targums to prove your sense of 
gehenna; and yet your sense of the word differs from the 
Targum writers, as much as ' spiritual punishment ' dif- 
fers from * material punishment/ etc. 

Your next sentence is remarkable. You, say — 'I 
know of no other way of arriving at the true meaning of 
Hebrew words and phrases.' Astonishing ! Is there 
no other way of arriving at the true meaning of gehenna, 
but by consulting (he Targums and Talrnuds ? If we 
admit this to be true, not one in ten thousand can ever 
understand the Scriptures, And not one preacher in a 
thousand is competent to teach them to others. You 
confess your own incompetency, as you got some persons 
at the University to consult the Chaldaic Targums for you. 
But I suspect this sentence of yours will communicate a 
new discovery to the critics. It shows a wonderful 
march of mind. But to me it appears to be marching 
backwards ; marching away from the Bible as its own 
feest interpreter, into the bewildering and uncertain 
7* 



78 

light of Jewish traditions. It appears, the Bible is of n& 
great use, unless people understand the Chaldaic lan- 
guage, and are familiar with the Targums and Talmuds. 

Such are your reasons for believing, that our Saviour 
used gehenna to mean spiritual punishment, both in this 
life and the world to come. And such are the 'two 
considerations,' which you said were * satisfactory to 
your mind,' that * our Lord and his apostles knew about 
the Targums.' You conclude this division of your let- 
ter by telling us, you have some other reasons, but want 
room to state them. You assert your sense of gehenna 
is the true one : you declare the critics and commenta- 
tors favor your views ; and you repeat your old misrepre- 
sentation of my opinions. But none of these things re- 
quire notice here, being sufficiently remarked on above. 

In concluding my remarks on this second general 
division of your Letter, I wouM ask, What proof have you 
offered, that gehenna means a 'spiritual punishment,* 
here or hereafter 1 Certainly your quotations from the 
Jewish writers prove no such punishment, and no attempt 
has been made to prove it from Scripture. Supposing 
all the texts which speak of gehenna did teach a future 
punishment, who could ever learn from them it was spir- 
itual, consisting in * inimical and revengeful feelings 1 ^ 
One would much sooner conclude from them, that gehen- 
, na was a literal torment by fire ; and more resembles 
the Targum hell than yours. But I must proceed to the 
third division of your Letter. You say, — 

'III. In the third place, I will answer the objections 
which may be made to my definition of the word gehen- 
na.' But these objections, sir, are a few of the facts stat- 
ed in my first Inquiry, which you convert into objections. 
And you admit, they have some * weight with candid in- 
quirers ' against your views of gehenna. This was a 
mere random kit in me, for when I wrote my first Inqui- 
ry, I was not aware any man defined gehenna, 'spiritual 
punishment of the wicked, both in this world and the 
next existence; the torment of inimical and revengeful 
feelings.' My book, sir, was written not against such a 
hell as this, but against the old Calvinistic hell I had be- 
lieved in from my childhood. You must still claim kin- 
dred with it, if my facts, which you turn into objections^ 



T9 

have weight against your spiritual punishment. But be 
this as it may, let us see how you manage with them. 
You say, — 

* 1. Perhaps you will affirm, that neither gehenna nor 
any other word is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to de- 
note a place of endless misery for the wicked.' You say 
* this I readily grant/ But, instead of attempting to ac- 
count for this fact, you go on to say, the Old Testament 
does not clearly teach * a future existence,' or * future 
retribution.' Notwithstanding this, you say, — * I must 
grant that the great majority of the Jewish nation in the 
time of our Saviour had a decided belief in both a future 
life and future retribution.' I grant this, sir, but askj, 
how they came by this decided belief? for by your own 
confession, it could not be from the Old Testament. 
Such doctrines, you say, were not ' taught with distinct- 
ness ' there. Some of the best critics say. the Jews in the 
time of our Saviuor had derived many of their opinions 
from the heathens, particularly on the subject of a future 
state. They had <2 decided belief in demons, Satan^, 
transmigration, witchcraft, etc.; but did their decided be- 
lief in such things make them true? According to your 
logic, as the heathenshad a decided belief in idols^ 
this made them true Gods. 

To get rid of my fact, like some others, you place the 
doctrine of *a future life ' and * a future retribution,' on 
the same footing in the Old Testament. You say, the 
Jews had some ' faint belief in both.' I think it can be 
shown, that persons under the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion, had a decided belief in a future happy existence ; but 
this is uot the point in discussion. But, where is it taught 
under that dispensation, that anj one had * a faint faith 
in,' or ^ a faint fear about ' puni.shment after death 1 It 
is admitted, gehenna then did not express this. Where 
or how then is such a punishment expressed in the Old 
Testament? You only contend, ^ gehenna \\2iS nsedi Xo 
teach future punishment for the wicked in the time of 
Christ's personal ministry,' and your faith about this 
seems to rest on the testimony of * those who have given 
this subject a thorough investigation.' But neither of 
you pretend to deny my fact, nor can you find anything 
to destroy it, as any objection against your views of ge- 



80 

henna. The fact is so palpable, it will not be denied. 
But you say,— 

*2. Perhaps you may affirm, that gehenna occurs but 
twelve times in the Christian Scriptrues, and is the only 
word which is supposed to mean a place or state of mis- 
ery for the wicked.' You add, * I admit that the word 
gehenna occurs but twelve times in the New Testament.' 
But you say, — * if our Saviour has taught the doctrine of 
future retribution in but one sentence in the whole of his 
teachings, I am perfectly satisfied.' So am I, sir ; and 
when you are at leisure, select that * one sentence ' where 
you are sure it is taught, and let us discuss its true mean- 
ing. I agree with you, Jesus * was not ignorant of the 
truth on this question ; neither can I allow that he utter- 
ed even one falsehood.' You say — ^ I am willing to con- 
fess that the removal of gehenna from the controversy 
would not shake my belief in the doctrine of a future ret- 
ribution.' Remove it, then ; for why encumber yourself 
with it 1 But, remember, sir, that in p. 163, you called 
the texts about gehenna your * undoubted instances ' of 
the truth of a future retribution. If you dismiss them 
from the controversy, you ought to make a long apology 
to Messrs. Nicols and Peabody, for putting them to so 
much unnecessary trouble. But is not this mere Jinesse 1 
If it is not, why did you call the texts about gehenna un- 
doubted instances of proof ? why did you divide them into 
six divisions'? why bo much time spent at the University 
poring over Jewish writings about gehenna? and why 
did you place year gehenna troops in the front of the 
battle, if no dependence was placed on them for a victo- 
ry ? Did you perceive the gehenna troops are not to be 
depended on — hence deemed it good generalship, to boast 
you can dispense with t\\eir services 1 Take care; — the 
moment you give up the texts about gehenna, you may 
give up the contest. People will tell you to your face, 
Mr. Whitman, if your * mdoubted instances ' of proof 
have failed, we can place no dependence on any other 
texts you may adduce. Dr. Allen, Professor Stuart, and ' 
others, never boasted that victory could be obtained with-» 
out the gehenna division was in the field. Thus, instead 
of destroying my fact, you expose your own weakness. 
But you say. — 



81 

' 3. Perhaps you will affirm that the word gehenna is 
used only by our Saviour and James, and ask why it 
was not mentioned by the other apostles ? ' You say, — 

* I admit the truth of your assertion.' But, is it a satis- 
factory answer to the question, * why gehenna was not 
mentioned by the other apostles,' to tell us, gehenna is a 
word ' which some of their hearers or readers could not 
understand ? ' No, sir; for you admit * gehenna was a 
word which the Jews of Judea understood.' And did 
not the apostles often address the Jews in Judea, yet 
never used the term gehenna ? Again, you tell us, 

* Some to whom the apostles preached, and to whom sev- 
eral of the epistles were partly addressed, were indeed 
of Jewish extraction. But then they had been educated 
in foreign countries. They used the Greek language ; 
they knew little or nothing of the colloquial usages of Ju- 
dea : they were acquainted with the Old Testament on- 
ly through the Septuagint.' But what a forgetful man you 
must be ; for did you not tell us, p. 163, gehenna ' is a 
Greek word.' And you have just told us, the Jews * ed- 
ucated in foreign countries used the Greek language : 
they were acquainted with the Old Testament only- 
through the Septuagint? ' Now, if gehenna was *a 
Greek word,' what could hinder the foreign Jews from 
understanding it ? But you told us also, pp. 174, 175, 
that Joseph's Targum, and the Baylonish Talmud, were 
composed at Babylon. Gehenna, sir, must have been 
understood there ; for you refer us to these writings for 
gehenna, meaning future punishment. Surely Babylon 
was not in Judea in those days. And if gehenna was 
understood there, why not by Jews in other foreign coun- 
tries ? And why could not the colloquial usage of ge- 
henna in Judea be understood by foreign Jews ; for all 
allow our Lord and his apostles quoted the Septuagint 
version, which the foreign Jews understood. And have 
you forgot, sir, that the foreign Jews often visited Judea, 
at the feasts, and on other occasions. On the day of 
Pentecost, Acts ii. there were at Jerusalem, ' devout 
men out of every nation under heaven.' But Peter, in 
preaching, did not use the term gehenna, or any other 
word in any other language to express future punish- 
ment. 



82 

But there is a very good reason, why the apostles nev- 
er-mentioned gehenna, either to the foreign or domestic 
Jews : it is one given by yourself, and is conclusive 
against your views of gehenna punishment. You say, 
p. 182, * The Greek translation, or the Septuagint, was 
used by those Jews who lived in foreign countries, and 
by them the traditions were never received nor acknowl- 
edged to be of any sort of authority/ It is not pretend- 
ed, sir, that gehenna either in the Hebrew scriptures or 
Greek version means future punishment. If it was 
therefore a Jewish tradition, the foreign Jews would have 
rejected it, had it been mentioned by the apostles. And 
that it was a tradition^ seems manifest from the fact, 
that the apostles never mentioned gehenna to foreign or 
domestic Jews, or to any one else. How happened this, 
if it was used in their day among the Jews to mean fu- 
ture punishment ? Its being a tradition, accounts for 
the silence of the apostles about it. For if our Lord 
used gehenna to mean future punishment, why did the 
apostles never mention this to the Jews in Judea, who 
certainly understood its colloquial meaning there 7 The 
importance of gehenna punishment, demanded, that ge- 
henna should be explained and understood by all, wheth- 
er Jews or Gentiles, in all countries. But the apostles 
did not concern themselves about gehenna, which plain- 
ly shows, no such sense was then attached to this word. 
Or, if it had this sense, they looked on it as a Jewish 
tradition. 

But you go on to say, the foreign Jews * were firm 
believers in future retribution, before and after their con- 
version, and consequently had no special need of elemen- 
tary instruction on this doctrine.' Strange ! Why then, 
sir, did our Lord's apostles need so much of this * elemen^ 
tary instruction ;' for most of what he said about gehen- 
na was specially addressed to them ? They were cer- 
tainly acquainted with its colloquial usage in Judea ; and 
you tdd us, a moment ago — * the great majority of the 
Jewish nation in the time of our Saviour had a decided 
belief in a future retribution.' And on p. 183, said, 
^ gehenna was uniformly used by the Jews in the time of 
our Saviour to mean future punishment.' Do explain to 
us, then, why Christ's apostles should need more of this 



83 

* elementary instruction ' than alj the world besides. 
More than foreign Jews, and more than the wicked Jews 
who lived in Judea. As you will not say it was to con- 
vert them, or constitute them apostles, why did they re- 
ceive so much of it 1 It could not be, to fit them for 
preaching gehenna or hell torments to others, for you 
confess they never preached gehenna to either Jews or 
Gentiles. I insist, therefore, that you must tell us, why 
Christ gave his own apostles so much more of this * ele- 
mentary instruction ' than the wicked Jews 1 The for- 
eign Jews received none of it. And if preaching gehen- 
na, or hell torments, is now so excellent a thing for con- 
verting people, as many suppose, how is it accounted for, 
that our Lord and his apostles used it so little for this 
purpose ? Like you * they seldom used the word hell in 
their discourses.' But you say^ ~ 

' 4. Perhaps you will affirm, that the word gehenna is 
not once used in addressing the Gentiles, and ask the 
cause of this omission ? ' Here again you say, — ' I 
admit the truth of your affirmation.' But what you say 
here, is, for substance, repeating what you said under 
the preceding particular, which has been replied to. I 
may just notice, you go on to say the Gentiles could not 
understand gehenna, and add, ^ consequently it would 
have been talking or writing an unknown tongue to have 
reminded them of the gehenna fire.' Well ; but why 
did they not remind them of the ' hades of fire,' or ' the 
tartarus of fire,' which the Gentiles did understand 1 
The apostles spoke all languages, and could use the 
word which any Gentile understood, to mean the same 
as gehenna. But they never did this. You add, the 
Gentiles ' believed already in future rewards and punish- 
ments, and only needed confirmation in their present be- 
lief.' Well, what persons ever received this confirmation 
from the hands of the apostles 1 By what words, which 
the Gentiles did understand, did the apostles confirm 
them in their belief of future punishment ? Had you 
found any such words, no doubt but you would have pro- 
duced them. But you say, — 

* 5. Perhaps you will affirm, that the greater part of 
what our Saviour said concerning gehenna, was address- 
ed to his disciples, and ask why he did not say more on 



84 

the subject to the unbelieving Jews, if the word meant 
future misery.' Yes, sir, I have affirmed this, and you 
say * the truth of your assertion I admit.' But it is be- 
yond your powers to devise a reply to this fact or objec- 
tion. Is it any answer to ask the following questions ? 
' To whom were most of his (Christ's) discourses ad- 
dressed ? To whom were his doctrines entrusted 1 Who 
were selected to propagate his gospel ? And to whom 
was the greater portion of his instructions on every sub- 
ject delivered ? To his disciples, certainly. Why then 
should he make a distinction in this question ? ' What 
connexion have these questions with my fact ? How 
they affect it, I am unable to perceive. Do they account 
for the fact, why our Lord said so much to his own apos- 
tles about gehenna, and so little to the unbelieving Jews ! 
surely not. But you say,—* He did preach gehenna to the 
unbelieving Jews ; and the different manner in which 
he declared this doctrine to the two classes of hearers, 
fully establishes the truth of my exposition. Mark this 
peculiarity.' This still leaves my fact untouched ; and di- 
rects the attention of the reader away from it, to * the 
different manner in which Christ declared this doctrine 
to the two classes of hearers.' Well, let us see what 
you say about ' the different manner ' in which gehenna 
was preached to the apostles and the wicked Jews ? 
You say, — * When addressing his disciples, he speaks of 
gehenna as something they might avoid by being his 
faithful disciples. Now if gehenna means a literal, tem- . 
poral punishment, the very way to be exposed to it was 
by embracing his religion, and thus exciting the anger of 
the Jews. But, if the word means future punishment, 
then surely they might escape by being righteous and 
holy, On the other hand, when he addressed the unbe- 
lieving Jews, he uses language like the following : — 
* How can ye escape the damnation of gehenna 1 ^ Now, 
if gehenna meant a literal, temporal punishment, these 
Jews were in no danger of suffering it ; for they were 
the ruling party, and of course would not condemn them- 
selves to death by fire ; and at the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, the Roman armies did not burn any individuals out- 
side of the city. According to your definition of the 
word, therefore, our Saviour threatened them with a pun» 



85 

ishment to which they were not exposed, and would nev- 
er suffer/ On this quotation we remark, 

1. You can do nothing against my views of gehenna, 
without your old misrepresentation, — being burned in the 
valley of Hinnom ; for here it is again introduced. Now, 
if gehenna, and the * damnation of gehenna/ meant the 
vengeance of God which was then coming on the Jew- 
ish nation, as I believe it did, how stands this case both 
with Christ's disciples and the unbelieving Jews ? As 
to the disciples, there was no way for them to escape this 
vengeance but by continuing Christ's faithful disciples. 
Such of them as endured to the end should be sav- 
ed from it. See Matt. xxiv. Embracing his religion, 
and being righteous and holy, was the only safety from 
this tremendous judgment of God on the Jewish nation. 
As to the unbelieving Jews, they had filled up the 
measure of their iniquity, and our Lord told them they 
could not escape this * damnation of gehenna.' Were 

.they, sir, in no danger of suffering this punishment? 
Could their being * the ruling party ' save them from it 1 
You will not say so. Why then, my dear sir, did you not 
state my views of gehenna to your readers ? Why mis- 
represent them 1 But, 

2. How, on your own views of gehenna, is my fact ac- 
counted for, that Christ should say so much about gehen- 
na to his disciples, and so little to the unbelieving Jews. 
This fact is not touched. To use your own words, with 
a little addition, * these unbelieving^ and persecuting 
Jews were in danger of future punishment from their ve- 
ry wickedness, and on this account ought to have had 
more said about it to them than the disciples.' But those 
who needed most of your * elementary instruction ' receiv- 
the least of it. Do preachers now say most about hell 
or future punishment to the church ? Do they say lit- 
tle about it to the wicked ? There is no way, sir, to ac- 
count for my fact, but on my views of gehenna punish- 
ment. But you say, 

* 6. Perhaps you will affirm that in all the places in 
which gehenna is used, the persons addressed are sup- 
posed to be acquainted with its meaning.' You add 
— * This I readily grant.' You then say — * When the 
word hell is now mentioned we uniformly understarid fu- 
8 



86 

ture misery. This was not the original meaning of the 
term by any mearis.' And after telling us, this was not 
its exclusive meaning when our English translation of the 
Bible was made, you observe — * So it was with gehen- 
na. It was originally used to mean the valley of Hin- 
nom. But in the time of our Saviour it was generally 
understood to mean future punishment, as the word hell 
is now supposed to convey the same idea.' Here, sir, 
you very frankly confess, the words hell and gehenna 
have been changed from their original signification, and 
made to mean future punishment. But you do not risk 
your reputation in asserting, that this change of sense 
was by God's authority. No, this was too much for 
Mr. Whitman. And Unitarians would be the last peo- 
ple on earth, to receive a sense given by men to the 
words atonement, logos, and others, unauthorized by 
Scripture. Well, Universalists are the last people on 
earth, who will receive a sense given to gehenna which 
is unscriptural. Our object, sir, is, to ascertain the sense 
which the Scripture writers attached to their words, 
and reject all others given to them by Jews, or any one 
else. 

But you risk your reputation in asserting — ' It was 
our Saviour's boldness in threatening the self-righteous 
Pharisees with misery beyond the grave, which so exas- 
perated their anger and enmity.' Well, since you risk 
such an assertion on paper, I assert you are mistaken, 
and am willing to risk the whole controversy on the truth 
or falsehood of your assertion. Prove it, and the contro- 
versy is ended. Christ's disciples, had more occasion to 
he exasperated at him than the self-righteous Pharisees; 
for did you not tell us a moment ago, most of his discour- 
ses were addressed to them; and you admitted above, 
most of what he said about gehenna was to them. It 
was them, not the self-righteous Pharisees, he ' threaten- 
ed with misery beyond the grave.' Once, and but once, 
did he say to the self-righteous Pharisees, * How can ye 
escape the damnation of gehenna,' yet it produced little, 
if any exasperation of their enmity. Saints in our day, 
would soon get exasperated at their ministers, if they 
addressed them about hell or gehenna as our Lord did 
his disciples, and said but little about it to sinners. 



87 

^ 7. Perhaps you will affirm, that if gehenna means 
future punishment, the Apostles never preached it to 
Jews or Gentiles.' You say, — * I admit that they used 
not this word.' No thanks to you for admitting this and 
other facts, for they are too palpable to be denied. You 
add, — * But it by no means follows, that the Apostles 
never preached future punishment.' Perhaps not ; but 
it follows, if they used not the word gehenna, they omit- 
ted using the word which you declared, p. 183, ' was 
uniformly used by the Jews in the time of the Saviour, 
and in succeeding ages, to mean future punishment.' 
Was not this a great and a strange omission 1 1 find, 
you give us the following reasons for this omission : 
' Most of their discourses recorded in the book of Acts 
were not preached in Judea, where the meaning of the 
word could be easily understood. Besides, there were 
doubtless more or fewer proselytes and heathen in almost 
every congregation, and the inspired teachers were too 
wise to use a word which they knew even one of their 
hearers could not feel. Not only so. There was no dis- 
pute on the subject of future retribution, for all believed 
this doctrine. Other topics engrossed their attention.' 
This is in substance the same you stated under the third 
and fourth particulars, and has been there answered. It 
is not correct, to say * there was no dispute on the sub- 
ject of future retribution.' The Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees ^were at variance on the subject. Besides, the 
wiser men among the heathen denied it, and laughed 
at tartarus or hell, by which the rabble were frightened. 
The Saviour found fault with the Sadducees for denying 
the doctrine of the resurrection ; but he, nor no Apostle 
after him, found fault with them for denying your future 
retribution. To say, * other topics engrossed their at- 
tention,' is a poor reason for neglecting to preach gehen- 
na punishment. It is indirectly telling us, what you and 
others deem of the utmost importance, the Apostles said 
little about. Are preachers now content with simply rc- 
cognizing the belief in future punishment? No, they 
can hardly find words strong enough to express it. You 
say, 

' 8. Perhaps you will affirm, that gospel salvation is 
salvation from sin, and not salvation from gehenna.' I 



88 

do afRrm this, sir, and you admit I am even half right 
here. You say, — * The first part of your statement 
is correct, and the latter part incorrect.' Well, let us 
see how you prove I am half incorrect, that gospel salva- 
tion is not ' salvation from gehenna ' or ' future punish- 
ment.' You say, — ' Sin and its consequences are the 
principal causes of misery in this world ; and I believe 
they are the only causes of punishment in another exist- 
ence.' Well, 1 say in your own words, — * The first 
part of your statement is correct, and the latter part in- 
correct.' In the latter part, you assume the question 
in debate, that there is 'punishment in another ex- 
istence.' I do not allow you to assume this, for I am not a 
Restorationist. But until you have proved there is pun- 
ishment in another existence, it is premature to conclude, 
* sin and its consequences are the only causes of it. 
And as you have never been in another existence, to 
know sin exists there, how do you know its consequen- 
ces are felt there ? And if sin and its consequences are 
ever to end, why should they not end with this state of 
existence, as well as in any future state of existence? 
If you know, sin and its consequences are to exist, and 
be the only causes of punishment in another existence, 
from the word of God, I say you mistake the meaning of 
the passages which you suppose teach this. No man, 
sir, ought to believe this on the authority of heathen 
opinions, or such passages interpreted by Jewish tradi- 
tions. Nor ought we to believe it from, your reaisonings, 
on the principle of analogy ; for, allow me the free use 
of this principle, and lean make the future state just 
what you please. You add, — * When a person therefore 
is free from sin and its consequences, he is saved from 
spiritual wretchedness.' It is certain, sir, from facts, 
that no man * is free from sin and its consequences ' in 
this life ; of course none are entirely free from this and 
other kinds of wretchedness. And if sin and its conse- 
quences do not end in this life, but are carried into an- 
other state of existence, the best saints are not free from 
wretchedness there. And if sin and its consequences 
are introduced into the next state of existence, what 
reason have we to hope they will end there, any more 
than in this state of existence 7 And, seeing God was 



not pleased to free men from sin here, and save them 
from spiritual wretchedness, why should he do it in the 
next existence ? And if evil men and seducers wax worse 
and worse here, why not also in the next existence ? And 
so sin and spiritual wretchedness go on to increase to 
endless duration. But I must ask, Is it not more ration- 
al to conclude, sin and its consequences end in the same 
state of existence in which they began ? If they do not 
end here, it will be difficult to tell when, or where they 
are to end. 

But, you make some indirect references to the Scrip- 
tures, to show that gospel salvation is salvation from ge- 
henna, or future punishment. You say, — * Paul speaks 
of his converts being already saved, and on this account 
they would be hereafter saved from wrath or torment. 
Consequently, he plainly taught that salvation from sin 
would secure salvation from future misery.* By your 
own showing, when Paul speaks of his converts being 
already saved, he meant * salvation from sin/ Well, 
you tell us, * on this account they would be hereafter 
saved from wrath or torment.' But you leap to the con- 
clusion, that icrath here means * future misery,' which is 
too long a leap at once. Had you consulted Dr. Camp- 
bell on Matt. iii. 7, or most commentators, you might 
have seen * ivrath to come* referred to the impending 
vengeance of God * then coming on the Jewish nation. 
And this is expressly called wrath, 1 Thess. ii. 16. Luke 
xxi. 23. And * the damnation of gehenna,^ Matt, xxiii. 
33. Now, Paul's converts, yea, all Christ's disciples 
who continued steadfast, were saved from this wrath, this 
gehenna punishment. 

You next make an indirect reference to the texts 
which speak of gehenna. But you take it for granted, 
gehenna means ^future wrath,^ This is assuming the 
whole question, in discussion. Christ warned his disci- 
ples against a gehenna. But did he warn them against 
* future wrath 1 ' If he did, his apostles never warned 
Jews or Gentiles against such a gehenna punishment, as 
you have admitted above. Your reference to Heb. ii. 3, 
is not less unfortunate. The believing Hebrews could 
not escape, (a just recompense of reward, verse 2,) if 
they neglected so great salvation. Paul told them, chap. 
8* 



90 

X. 25, that they saw ' the day approaching, ' when this 
just recompense would be rendered on the Jewish nation,, 
and apostacy would involve them in perdition with the 
unbelieving part of their nation, verse 39. 

But, you renew your reasonings and say, — ' Are not 
faith and repentance frequently mentioned as unaltera- 
ble conditions of Christian salvation? ' Salvation from 
what, sir ? If faith and repentance are unalterable con- 
ditions of salvation from 'future wrath, ^ then the whole 
heathen world, all infants dying in infancy, and nine 
tenths of the Christian world are not saved from it. You 
reason further, thus : ' Now, so long as sin exists, mis- 
ery must continue, and even longer, as you can testify.* 
Well the question is. How long is sin to continue ? for 
when it ceases, misery ceases, or soon after it. You add, 
* So long as there are those whom Jesus has not saved 
from wickedness, so long there must be punishment.*" 
I admit, sir, that ' so long as sin exists, misery must con- 
tinue ; ' and this is granting you also, that if sin contin- 
ues after death, misery will continue after it; for by your 
own showing, the existence of misery depends on the ex- 
istence of sin. You think misery continues longer than 
sin, but how much longer you do not risk a conjecture. 
Well, do you even tell us how long sin is to exist 1 No. 
Nor do you tell us how long misery is to exist. What 
you wish to establish is, that sin and punishment exist 
in another world. Well, how do you make out this ? 
You say-— * that many leave this world in an unsaved 
condition, you will not deny.' Well, suppose I admit 
this, — what then ? Is this any evidence that they go on 
to exist, and sin, and suffer, in another existence 1 No^ 
sir, this is taking the very things for granted, which must 
be proved. The dead know not anything ; but you al- 
lege, they go on sinning and suffering after death, a doc- 
trine which I cannot find in the Bible. I should like to 
know, in what part of the Bible I can find the doctrine 
of salvation from either sin or misery after death ? Un- 
til you prove men sin after death, how can you prove they 
need salvation from it after death ? And if they do not 
sin after death, they cannot be punished after death, un- 
less you hold to the opinion, of punishment for the sins 
of this life in the next existence. But if you do, how do 



91 

you prove that punishment in our present existence, is 
not for sins committed in a pre-existence, and so intro- 
duce the doctrine of transmigration. You say, — 

* 9. Perhaps you will affirm, that neither the Hebrew, 
Greek or English languages, had originally any name for 
a place of future punishment.' This fact you seem to 
admit also. But it is not meeting it to assert, — * these 
tongues had originally no name for a place of future re- 
ward.' Nor is it true, * that all the nations which have 
SDoken these several lans^uanres have believed in both fu- 
ture rewards and punishments from time immemorial;' for 
some Christians have confessed, that the doctrine of fu- 
ture punishment was not taught by God to the Jewish 
nation, but was learned from the heathen, etc. But I 
ask, Does the antiquity and universality of a^^doctrine 
make it true ? Then Idolatry is true; Trinitarianism 
is true ; and Unitarianism must be false. But you say, 
— * If our judges should condemn fifty pirates to be 
hung, and omit to name any place of execution, would 
this prove that the sentence would never be executed ? ' 
I answer. No; and ask, if such judges omitted to name 
both the place of execution and the sentence to it, would 
such pirates be hung ? You must answer, No. Well, I 
ask, where has God mentioned either the place of future 
punishment or the sentence of men to it ? Produce your 
texts, where either of these things is taught ? I am 
willing to yield you the whole question in debate, if you 
produce God's sentence to future punishment, leaving the 
place of execution out of the question. You say, — 

* 10. Perhaps you will affirm, that gehenna was origi- 
nally used to mean the valley of Hinnom, and ask when 
its meaning changed to future punishment ? ' You ad- 
mit this fact, but say, — * The word paradise was origi- 
nally used to denote an earthly garden. The word heav- 
en was first employed to mean the space over our heads. 
When did their meaning change to a place or state of fu- 
ture happiness ? ' I answer, sir, explicitly, — When for 
the first time, any sacred writer used them in this sense. 
And if you will show, that any sacred writer used ge^ 
henna to mean future punishment, the controversy is end- 
ed. But again, you say, — * When the English trans- 
lation of the Bible was executed, the word villain was 



92 

applied to Paul and the other apostles. Its common 
meaning at that day was a servant. Can you tell me when 
it was changed to denote a vile scoundrel? ' Well, as 
you refer to the original use of the word villain^ that it 
did not mean a vile scoundrel, but a servant ; so do I, 
that the word gehenna did not originally mean future 
punishment, but the valley of Hinnom, and figuratively 
for the vengeance of God on the nation of the Jews. 
You adopt precisely the same course with the word vil- 
lain, which I do with the word gehenna, appeal to its 
original usage in the Scriptures. You justify the course 
I have pursued. You say, — 

* 11. Perhaps you will affirm, that if the Jewish moan- 
ing be given to gehenna, it will prove a material hell.' 
This objection of your own making, you deny, and say 
— ' This is one mode of infidel attack upon our religion. 
They say the Jewish writers describe God as possessed 
of human limbs, senses and prssions, and therefore the 
God of the Bible is a materia] being.' 

If the Jewish meaning of gehenna, sir, does not prove 
a local material hell of fire, how can words be selected 
to do this 1 They describe this hell and no other, as I 
have pointed out above. And has not a local hell of fire 
been believed in for ages 1 Some still believe in no 
other. But now you tell all good Christians, * this is one 
mode of infidel attack upon our religion.' But will your 
spiritual hell shield ' our religion ' from infidel attacks 1 
No, sir ; my views of gehenna, put an end to infidel at- 
tacks on hell, by removing this whole corruption of 
Christianity out of the way. Infidels, sir, are left without 
excuse ; for the Bible says in plain language, * God is a 
spirit.' But are they left inexcusable in regard to your 
hell 1 Does the Bible ever say — * gehenna is a spiritual 
punishment both in this world and the next existence, 
the torment of inimical and revengeful feelings'!' The 
Bible describes no such hell as this ; and no wonder men 
become infidels, when Mr. Whitman, of Waltham, aban- 
dons his Bible, and goes to the Jewish writers of anti- 
quity, to prove a * spiritual hell,' and behold they prove 
a literal hell of fire. He makes no attempt to show how 
their literal hell of fire is to be interpreted spiritually to 
suit his spiritual punishment. It is true ' we must have 



93 

sensible things to make ideas plain to uneducated minds ; 
but will Mr. Whitman affirm, his Jewish writers describ- 
ed a literal hell, to make a spiritual hell plain to such 
minds ? Will he be so kind as to show how we may 
spiritualize the Targum and Talmud hell ? 

* 12. Perhaps you will affirm, that if I give to gehen- 
na the meaning of future torment, I prefer the Targums 
to the books of the Old Testament.' You deny this. 
But, how you can with any face deny it, is surprising. 
Let us see how you manage ? You say — * I do not go 
to the Jewish writers and commentators for any religious 
doctrines or precepts ; or for their opinion on any article 
of Christain faith and practice. But to ascertain the 
meaning of a word is a purely philological question. 
And the only way in which this can be done in the pres- 
ent instance is by reference to the Targums and Tal- 
muds. This every critic will tell you. This every man 
of candor must admit.' What the critics, Campbell, 
Jahn, Stuart, Home, and a writer of your own sect, 
have said about this, we have seen above. It is not true, 
that you do not go to the Jewish writers for any religious 
doctrine, any article of Christian faith ; for is not gehen- 
oa or hell punishment a very important article of Chris- 
tian faith ? Is hell torment now no * religious doctrine 7 ^ 
Would you have gone to the Jewish wTiters had they 
been silent on this doctrine ? No. Why then say it is 
^ purely a philological question 1 ' Why did you not go 
to the Scriptures instead of the Targums ? Evidently, 
because they did not give the meaning to gehenna 
which suited your purpose. You say * the Old Testa- 
ment cannot give me satisfaction on this question. Why 
so ? Because the most modern writings in this book 
were composed about four hundred years before Christ. 
After this period the Hebrew language underwent many 
and great transformations.' So, you tell infidels, the 
Old Testament is of no use in interpreting the New, be- 
cause it is four hundred years older. Yea, you tell them, 
the sense of words in the Old Testament alter with the 
transformations of time and the traditions of men. Will 
this cure them of their infidelity ? No, sir ; it must con- 
firm them in it, and increase their numbers. And well 



94 

may they smile at Mr. Whitman^s hell, when he goes to 
the Targums and Talmuds to prove it. 

But you say, — * We have few if any Jewish writings 
of the period wanted except those I have consulted.' 
You had the writings of Philo, Josephus, and some of 
the Apocryphal books ' of the period wanted^^ but you 
did not consult them, and for reasons noticed above. 
The Talmuds are about as long after the days of the Sa- 
viour, as the books of the Old Testament |were before ; 
and for the same reason you reject the one, you ought 
also to reject the other. But if the sense of Scripture 
words, alter by lapse of time and the innovations of men, 
they must be wonderfully altered in sense in the nine- 
teenth century. You have given us one fine specimen 
of these alterations ; for gehenna now means, ^spiritual 
punishment of the wicked both in this world and the next 
existence^ the torment of inimical and revengeful feel' 
ings.^ Is it any wonder, sir, men become infidels? 

But you go on to tell us, * the comparatively later 
Jewish writers use gehenna to denote future punishment 
in hundreds of instances,' and * are good authority.' 
You say, * they evidently ground their doctrines on the 
Targums, the early Rabbins and the Talmuds ; for to 
all these they constantly refer.' You tell us further, 
^ you cannot suspect them of borrowing the signification 
of Hebrew words from Christian writers.' So you frank- 
ly confess, this doctrine about gehenna, is grounded 
^ on the, Targums, the early Rabbins, and the Talmuds.' 
So w^e have suspected. Excuse me, sir, from deeming 
them authority. 

You say, — * The Old Testament in the Septuagint 
version furnishes no authority one way or the other ; for 
the valley of Hinnom is always rendered in some other 
form of words.' But even this, sir, is not strictly true; 
for in Josh, xviii. 16, we have the word gaihenna^ which 
is only a trifling difference in the spelling. But this ve- 
ry confession of yours shows, that when the Septuagint 
version was made, gehenna or the valley of Hinnom, 
did not mean future punishment. The translators found 
no such doctrine in the Hebrew Scriptures, and convey- 
ed no such doctrine to posterity in their version. 

You add, — * Perhaps you will ask why great use is 



95 

not made of thsse Jewish writings in illustration of the 
Scriptures ? They have indeed been used to great ad- 
vantage. Look at Lightfoot, Wetstein, Schoettgen, and 
others, —the greatest names in biblical criticism, and you 
will never ask such a question a second time.' Ernesti 
Basnage, and others; above, condemn Lightfoot, etc. for 
using as they do the Jewish writers in interpreting the 
Scriptures. What modern critic does this? It is not 
common among Unitarians, so far as my knowledge of 
them extends. It is peculiar to Mr. Whitman, and even 
with him, on the subject of gehenna punishment. Dire 
necessity drove him to the Targums and Talmuds in 
this controversy. 

I come now to your concluding paragraph. You say, 
— ' If you or any of your denomination are not satisfied 
with my conclusion, I ask you to appoint some well 
qualified person to make a thorough investigation of the 
whole subject : all tlie books are to be found in the li- 
brary of Harvard University, which is open to all settled 
ministers within ten miles of Cambridge.' But there is 
no need of this, for did not you tell us,°p. ]65, that your 
investigation of the subject, is ' a thorough investigation: 
No one can doubt, but you have given us in, your book, 
the best evidence which Cambridge library could furnish! 
We have examined it, and the reader can judge if it sup- 
ports your conclusion — that you * have fairly proved the 
doctrine of future punishment from that class of passa- 
ges in which the word gehenna occurs.' If you had, he 
could have found it out without your asserting it. 

Conclusion. I have now finished what I have to say 
on your letter. I have quoted all your material state- 
ments, and replied to them ; and I think you will con- 
fess, I have neither misunderstood or misrepresented 
you. Let our readers judge between us. 

I am yours, respectfully, W. Balfour. 



ERRATA. 

Please correct the following as the most important errata. P. 17, 9th line for 
KemchVs read KimchV,: P. 47, two last lines, dele comma after the words Ufc- 
droJich -- Pierch — Beraschith and Masse. P. 54, 15th line from top, for Apocra. 
phyreOid Apocrypha. ^' i^^^u- 






BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 



FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING STORES : 



Marsh, Capen &> Lyon — Baker & Alexander — R. P. 
& C. Williams — Munroe & Francis — Josiah Loring — • 
B. B. Mussey — J. B. Dow, and at the Trumpet Office, 
Boston. Also, by the Author, Charlestown^ — and in 
the principal cities and towns in the Union. 

1. His First Inquiry into the sense of the original 

terms rendered Hell, in the common version. In cloth, $1. 

2. His Reply to Sabine's Lectures on the Inquiry. — 

50 cents."* 

3. His Second Inquiry into the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture concerning the Devil and Satan, and the duration express- 
ed by the terms Oulm, Man, and MonioSy rendered everlasting, 
etc. Boards, $1— in sheep, $1.25. 

4. Three Essays, on the Intermediate State of the 

Dead, the Resurrection from the Dead, and on the Greek terms 
rendered Judgment, Damned, Damnation, etc. With remarks 
on Mr. Hudson's Letters, etc. Boards. $1 — bound, $1.25. 

5. Letter to Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin Col- 
lege, in reply to his Lecture on Universal Salvation, addressed to 
the Students of the College. 25 cents.* 

6. Letters on the Immortality of the Soul, the Inter- 
mediate State of the Dead, and a Future Retribution, in Reply 
to Mr, Charles Hudson, etc. Boards, $1— bound, $1.25. 

7. Reply to Professor Stuart's Exegetical Essays. 
In cloth, 75 cents.* 

8. Letters to Professor Stuart. 

Orders for the above works, addressed to the Author, Charles- 
town, will be punctually and faithfully executed. One third dis- 
count will be made for Cash, and twenty per cent, allowed re- 
sponsible persons, to sell on Commission. 

* Very few of the works marked thus, remain on hand for sale. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



^f 



